In Silicon Valley and beyond, few monopoly battles have drawn as much focus as the US case against Google’s dominance in online search. Not since the Microsoft trial in 1998 has Big Tech felt such a threat. One year after Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist, he presented remedies that some see as lenient while others call significant.
Google avoids a forced breakup
During the remedies phase, many feared a Google breakup. Judge Mehta, however, rejected the government’s demand to spin off Chrome. The browser remains the most widely used worldwide. The Department of Justice also sought oversight of Google’s Android system to prevent it from supporting search and advertising monopolies. But both Chrome and Android remained untouched.
“These products secured market share, blocked rivals, and monetized dominance,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may try again later this month in a separate case focused on Google’s advertising technology empire.
Artificial intelligence shifts the legal landscape
The Department of Justice filed its lawsuit in 2020, when most consumers had never heard of generative AI. “The rise of GenAI changed the case,” Judge Mehta wrote, citing the rapid flow of investment. The pace of transformation only grew after he ruled Google a monopolist in search.
Google plays a leading role in AI, often placing generated answers above search results. Yet Judge Mehta argued that AI competitors hold the resources and power to challenge Google in ways traditional rivals could not. He admitted his difficult position: predicting the future of a rapidly evolving market rather than relying solely on history. “That is not a judge’s strength,” said Jennifer Huddleston, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. His caution shaped the remedies he imposed.
A partial win for Big Tech
Wall Street largely viewed the ruling as a victory for the technology sector. Yet Judge Mehta still ordered measures that could alter competition. Google must share parts of its vast search index with “qualified competitors.” This index functions as a detailed map of the internet. Selected rivals may even present Google’s results as their own, buying time to innovate.
Google may continue paying Apple and Samsung for prominent placement on devices and browsers. But exclusive contracts are no longer allowed, giving partners more power to walk away or seek alternatives. “The remedies could still matter,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, an antitrust expert at Vanderbilt University. She stressed that avoiding the harshest outcome does not mean the industry achieved a complete win.
She noted that Judge Mehta faced limits set by the Microsoft case. An appeals court once blocked a breakup order there. “It was always going to be difficult for this judge to attempt what his colleague failed to achieve more than twenty years ago,” Allensworth said.
