The US government’s case against Google’s dominance in online search has sparked global debate. Not since Microsoft faced trial in 1998 has Big Tech felt so exposed. One year after Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist, he issued remedies that some dismiss as weak while others argue they could still matter.
Google escapes the harshest penalty
During the remedies phase, many anticipated a forced split. Judge Mehta rejected calls to spin off Chrome, the world’s most popular browser. The Justice Department also sought oversight of Android to block Google from tightening control over search and advertising. Both products remained untouched in the ruling.
“These platforms secured share, blocked challengers, and monetized power,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may return later this month with a separate case targeting Google’s advertising technology empire.
Artificial intelligence alters the equation
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in 2020, before generative AI reached the mainstream. “GenAI reshaped the case,” Judge Mehta wrote, noting the billions flowing into the sector. The pace of change has only accelerated since his ruling that Google monopolizes search.
Google plays a central role in AI, often pushing generated responses above standard results. Still, Judge Mehta argued that AI rivals now wield the funding and tools to mount a real challenge. He acknowledged the difficulty of predicting such a fast-moving market. “That is not a judge’s strength,” said Jennifer Huddleston, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. His caution shaped the remedies he crafted.
A cautious victory for Google
Wall Street analysts broadly saw the ruling as a win for technology firms. Yet Judge Mehta still ordered measures that could shift competition. Google must share parts of its vast search index with “qualified competitors.” This index serves as a comprehensive map of the internet. Some challengers may even republish Google’s results to gain time for innovation.
Google can continue paying Apple and Samsung for default search placement. But exclusivity is now banned, giving partners flexibility to pursue alternatives. “The remedies could prove significant,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, antitrust professor at Vanderbilt University. She argued that avoiding a breakup does not equal a total victory for the tech industry.
She emphasized that Judge Mehta was constrained by precedent from the Microsoft case, when a higher court overturned a breakup order. “It was always going to be difficult for this judge to achieve what his colleague failed to accomplish more than twenty years ago,” Allensworth said.
