WASHINGTON — A federal district court issued a mixed verdict on Tuesday in the longest-running of the major antitrust actions against the largest technology platforms, finding the defendant liable on two of the four counts the government had brought and dismissing the remaining two.

The findings of liability concern search distribution and app-store conduct; the dismissed counts concern advertising practices and a more contested set of product-integration arguments. The court's reasoning, totalling nearly 380 pages, will be parsed for months by the antitrust bar.

What the court found

On the search-distribution count, the court found that the defendant's distribution agreements with browser and device makers had the practical effect of foreclosing competition on the merits in the search market and that the procompetitive justifications the defendant offered did not adequately rebut the foreclosure showing.

On the app-store count, the court found similar foreclosure effects in a defined segment of in-app payment transactions, with reasoning that closely tracks decisions from other jurisdictions on related conduct. The defendant's procompetitive justifications were given more weight on this count but were ultimately found insufficient.

What the court declined

The court declined to find liability on the advertising-practices count, accepting the defendant's argument that the relevant market was more competitive than the government's market-definition framework had assumed. The reasoning on this count is the part of the decision that the broader antitrust community is parsing most carefully, because the market-definition argument has implications that extend beyond the immediate case.

The court also declined to find liability on the product-integration count, accepting the defendant's procompetitive arguments about the consumer benefits of the integrated product offerings.

The remedies question

The remedies phase of the case will, on the court's published schedule, take approximately eighteen months. The government has signalled it will pursue a combination of behavioural remedies on both liability counts, with structural remedies reserved as a backstop if the behavioural remedies prove insufficient.

The defendant has signalled it will appeal the liability findings while continuing to engage on remedies. The combination of an active remedies phase and an active appeal is the configuration that defines the next year and a half of the case.

What this means for the broader antitrust landscape

The mixed verdict has implications for the broader antitrust landscape that go beyond the immediate parties. The court's reasoning on the dismissed counts, particularly the market-definition discussion, will affect how subsequent cases are pleaded and litigated.

The reasoning on the liability counts will, in parallel, affect how the largest platforms structure their distribution and platform-conduct practices going forward. Both effects will work their way through the industry over the coming years.