The US government’s case against Google’s search dominance has drawn global attention. Not since Microsoft faced trial in 1998 has Big Tech confronted such scrutiny. One year after Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist, he introduced remedies that some critics call mild, while others see as potentially impactful.
Chrome and Android remain untouched
During the remedies phase, many expected a breakup. Judge Mehta rejected calls to spin off Chrome, the world’s most popular browser. The Justice Department also sought oversight of Android to prevent Google from reinforcing its control over search and advertising. Both platforms survived intact.
“These products built market share, blocked competitors, and monetized dominance,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may return later this month in a separate case targeting Google’s advertising technology empire.
AI changes the competitive landscape
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in 2020, before generative AI became mainstream. “GenAI reshaped this case,” Judge Mehta wrote, highlighting the surge of investment in the sector. The pace of change has accelerated since he ruled Google monopolizes search.
Google plays a central role in AI, often placing generated answers above traditional results. Yet Judge Mehta said AI rivals now have the funding and technology to challenge Google where older competitors could not. He acknowledged the difficulty of predicting a rapidly evolving market. “That is not a judge’s strength,” said Jennifer Huddleston, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. His caution shaped the remedies he imposed.
A cautious outcome for Big Tech
Wall Street analysts largely saw the ruling as a win for technology companies. Still, Judge Mehta imposed measures that could benefit competitors. Google must share parts of its search index with “qualified competitors.” The index serves as a vast map of the internet. Some rivals may even display Google’s results as their own to gain time for innovation.
Google can continue paying Apple and Samsung for prime placement on devices and browsers. But exclusive contracts are now banned, giving partners more freedom to explore alternatives. “The remedies could still have an impact,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, antitrust professor at Vanderbilt University. She stressed that avoiding a breakup does not constitute a full victory for the industry.
She added that Judge Mehta operated under limits set by the Microsoft case, when a higher court blocked a breakup order. “It was always going to be difficult for this judge to achieve what his colleague failed to do more than twenty years ago,” Allensworth said.
