In Silicon Valley and far beyond, few monopoly battles have drawn as much attention as the US government’s case against Google’s dominance in online search. Not since the Microsoft trial in 1998 has Big Tech felt such a threat. A year after Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist, he unveiled remedies that some see as soft while others view as meaningful.
Google sidesteps the harshest penalties
During the remedies phase, the prospect of a Google breakup loomed large. Judge Mehta, however, rejected the government’s request to force a Chrome spin-off. Chrome remains the world’s most widely used browser. The Department of Justice also asked the court to monitor Google’s Android system to prevent it from reinforcing search and advertising monopolies. But both Chrome and Android emerged untouched.
“These tools helped Google expand its reach, block rivals, and monetize its dominance,” explained John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may get another chance to push harder later this month in a separate case. That case targets Google’s advertising technology empire.
The AI revolution reshapes the case
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in 2020, when generative AI was still unfamiliar to most consumers. “The rise of GenAI reshaped the case,” Judge Mehta wrote, pointing to the billions flowing into the new field. Change accelerated even more after his ruling that Google is a monopolist in search.
Google plays a leading role in AI, often placing AI-generated answers at the top of results. Yet Judge Mehta argued that AI challengers bring the kind of power and funding that older search rivals lacked. He admitted to an uneasy role: predicting the future of a fast-moving market instead of only reviewing the past. “That is not a judge’s strength,” noted Jennifer Huddleston, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. His caution shaped the remedies he issued.
How big was the win for Google?
Wall Street analysts broadly viewed the ruling as a victory for Big Tech. Still, Judge Mehta ordered steps that experts say could matter. Google must now share portions of its massive search index with “qualified competitors.” The index works like a vast map of the internet. Certain rivals may even display Google’s results as their own to gain time and resources for innovation.
Google can keep paying Apple and Samsung for prominent placement on devices and browsers. Yet exclusive deals are now banned, giving partners more freedom to walk away or consider competitors. “The remedies could prove meaningful,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, an antitrust professor at Vanderbilt University. She stressed that avoiding the worst outcome does not make the ruling “a clear win” for the industry.
She pointed out that Judge Mehta faced constraints from the Microsoft case. Back then, an appeals court blocked a breakup order. “It was always going to be tough for this judge to attempt what his colleague was stopped from doing two decades ago,” Allensworth said.
