Google has secured a significant victory in the long-running U.S. v. Google antitrust battle, after a federal district court judge ruled Tuesday that the company can continue making search distribution deals—including its reported $20 billion arrangement with Apple to remain the default search option on Safari.

The ruling, delivered by Judge Amit Mehta, represents a sharp blow to the Justice Department (DOJ), which had sought far more aggressive remedies against Google after Mehta ruled last year that the company maintained an illegal monopoly in the online search and advertising markets.

“Google will not be barred from making payments or offering other consideration to distribution partners for preloading or placement of Google Search, Chrome, or its GenAI products,” Mehta wrote. “Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial—in some cases, crippling—downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban.”

The decision preserves the highly lucrative deal between Google and Apple, under which the search giant reportedly pays more than $20 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Safari across iPhones, iPads, and Mac devices. That arrangement has long been a target of antitrust critics, who argue it cements Google’s dominance and squeezes out rivals.

Mozilla’s Defense of Google Deals

Apple was not the only company to defend its partnership with Google. Mozilla, developer of the Firefox browser, also testified that its financial relationship with Google is critical to survival. Mozilla’s CFO argued during the remedies trial that without Google’s payments, Firefox “might be doomed,” underscoring how dependent smaller browser makers are on Google’s distribution dollars.

These testimonies appear to have influenced Mehta’s decision, with the court recognizing that banning Google’s financial arrangements could harm not only Google’s rivals but also consumers who rely on alternative browsers.

Limited Remedies, No Breakup

While the DOJ had pushed for structural remedies, including the possible divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser and even its Android mobile operating system, Mehta declined to go that far. The court ruled that Google would not be required to offer choice screens on its products—another potential remedy the DOJ had championed.

Instead, Google faces narrower obligations, such as being required to share some search index and user interaction data with competitors. However, Mehta stopped short of ordering Google to share advertising data, narrowing the scope of data-sharing to protect Google’s business model.

Google Plans Appeal

Google immediately framed the ruling as a recognition of the competitive realities of the tech industry. The company has long argued that exclusive distribution agreements help fund innovation and support its partners while giving consumers better search services.

Still, despite escaping the most severe remedies, Google has said it will appeal aspects of the case. The DOJ, too, is expected to challenge the ruling, given its limited impact relative to the sweeping measures prosecutors had requested.

Broader Implications of The Ruling

Deciding on the DOJ’s lawsuit was challenging due to Google’s entrenched role in the U.S. and global economy. The tech giant had argued earlier that breaking it up would hurt the U.S. digital economy.

While Judge Mehta last year found Google guilty of monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, this remedies ruling shows that proving anticompetitive conduct is one challenge, but imposing remedies without causing collateral damage to consumers and partner companies is another.

The ruling is also a reminder of the sheer scale of Google’s financial reach. Paying Apple $20 billion annually to maintain default status illustrates how central search distribution deals are to Google’s empire—and how costly they could be for rivals attempting to compete.

Following this ruling, Google will continue to dominate the default search experience for billions of users across Apple and Mozilla products – at least for now. But with the appeals and regulatory scrutiny in both the United States and Europe, the battle over Google’s search monopoly is far from over.

Swedish fintech giant Klarna is moving ahead with its long-anticipated public debut, seeking to raise up to $1.27 billion in a New York listing that will test investor appetite for tech companies still grappling with profitability and the fallout of past overvaluations.

According to its filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Klarna plans to offer 34,311,274 ordinary shares priced between $35 and $37 each. At that range, the offering would value the company at as much as $14 billion — far below its $45.6 billion peak valuation in June 2021, when SoftBank led a major funding round. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley are acting as joint book runners for the deal.

The shares will trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “KLAR.” Out of the shares on offer, Klarna itself is selling 5.56 million, while the bulk — roughly 28.8 million — will come from existing shareholders who are offloading part of their stakes.

From Pandemic Darling to Reality Check

Founded in 2005, Klarna pioneered the “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) model that became a global hit during the pandemic e-commerce boom. However, as interest rates rose and consumer credit risks increased, the fintech sector saw its valuations collapse. Klarna’s own value plunged by as much as 85% in 2022, to $6.7 billion, as worsening macroeconomic conditions, exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, pressured growth.

Despite that downturn, Klarna has been clawing back momentum. Revenue for the June quarter rose 20% year-on-year to $823 million. Still, losses remain a drag, with the company posting a $53 million net loss for the period — widening from a year earlier.

Klarna had initially planned to go public earlier this year, but pressed pause after U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a wave of reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries in April. The move unsettled global markets, raising fears of retaliatory measures and hitting the financial prospects of companies reliant on cross-border commerce.

Klarna, whose operations span Europe, the U.S., and beyond, chose to wait for calmer conditions before reviving its listing plans.

AI: From Overreliance to a Human-Centric Pivot

Beyond macroeconomic headwinds, Klarna has also faced internal turbulence tied to its aggressive embrace of artificial intelligence. Over the past two years, CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski hailed AI as a cornerstone of cost efficiency, boasting last year that the company’s AI assistant was performing the work equivalent of 700 customer support agents. Klarna froze most hiring outside of engineering, eliminated over 1,200 external SaaS tools, and restructured teams to lean heavily on automation.

But those changes have produced unintended consequences. Employees across business operations, analytics, marketing, engineering, and legal have seen their roles eliminated and have been placed in an internal “talent pool” — a system critics describe as a quiet-layoff mechanism. Some, including senior staff, have since been reassigned to customer support roles under Chief Operating Officer Camilla Giesecke.

In a rare admission, Siemiatkowski told Bloomberg in May that his cost-cutting push “went too far,” leading to reduced service quality. He now says the company will reinvest in human support, even experimenting with a gig-work model for customer service agents.

“As cost unfortunately seems to have been a too predominant evaluation factor when organizing this, what you end up having is lower quality,” he said. “Really investing in the quality of the human support is the way of the future for us.”

That shift reflects a broader reassessment across industries about the limits of AI in consumer-facing roles. While companies like Amazon continue shrinking workforces through automation, others have stumbled. McDonald’s, for example, pulled its Automated Order Taker system from over 100 restaurants after viral blunders, while Starbucks reaffirmed its reliance on baristas rather than machines to boost customer experience.

Siemiatkowski himself has acknowledged this reality, remarking earlier this year: “We just had an epiphany: in a world of AI nothing will be as valuable as humans.”

IPO at a Crossroads

For Klarna, the IPO represents both a milestone and a gamble. While the company is still burning cash, its revenue growth and global footprint provide a foundation for investor interest. The offering will also provide liquidity for early backers such as SoftBank, Sequoia, and other venture firms, many of whom are looking to cash out after years of waiting.

Yet, the company enters public markets at a valuation less than one-third of its pandemic peak — a humbling reminder of how much investor sentiment has shifted in fintech. The offering also unfolds against a politically fraught backdrop, as Trump’s tariff policies inject uncertainty into the very trade flows companies like Klarna depend on.

With $1.27 billion on the line, Klarna’s IPO is more than a financial event; it is a referendum on whether investors still believe in the long-term viability of the BNPL model, and whether the balance between AI efficiency and human service can be struck in a way that restores consumer trust.

“That was what pegged the budget of the federal government [of Nigeria] at £50 million in 1959 but Western Region [of Nigeria] ran a budget of £55 million.” – Mr.  B. O. Akinyemi.

Yes, the older version of Southwest ran a bigger budget than the national budget. Then, competition was huge among the regions and the leaders were not wasting time in the old “Abuja” [ Lagos was the capital then].  But somehow, Nigeria changed what was working, and right now, nothing is happening at scale in the regions.

If you study the pre-1963 budget, the message was loud and clear: Nigeria was on a path of unbounded and unconstrained abundance and opportunity where smart people were innovating in building pillars of markets and economies.  In that budget of 1959, the federal government was the one asking for help because the regions had the resources. Yes, the “governors” then had the resources to make things happen!

But today, things have fallen apart, and everyone has become lazy because there is no consequence for not working, as Abuja serves everyone in Nigeria, and most governors can claim “Abuja has not paid the monthly allocation and we are calling our bankers to know when the funds will arrive…we are in touch with CBN to know the reason for the delays”  Very painful for Nigeria!

Sure – I hope someone will deliver FISCAL federalism in Nigeria and save it from itself!