The US government’s challenge to Google’s dominance in online search has drawn intense global attention. Not since Microsoft faced trial in 1998 has Big Tech confronted such a serious threat. A year after Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist, he announced remedies that some call weak while others believe could matter.
Chrome and Android remain untouched
During the remedies phase, many expected Google might face a breakup. Judge Mehta rejected the push to spin off Chrome, the world’s most popular browser. The Justice Department also wanted oversight of Android to stop it from reinforcing Google’s search and ad power. In the ruling, both platforms stayed intact.
“These products helped Google secure market share, block competition, and monetize its dominance,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may seek stronger action later this month in a separate case that targets Google’s advertising technology empire.
The rise of AI changes the picture
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in 2020, before generative AI became widely known. “GenAI transformed this case,” Judge Mehta wrote, highlighting the massive investment flowing into the technology. The shift accelerated after he ruled Google monopolizes search.
Google plays a central role in AI, often showing generated responses above search results. Yet Judge Mehta argued that AI companies hold the money and technology to threaten Google in ways traditional search firms could not. He admitted the difficulty of predicting the future of 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 issued.
A restrained victory for Big Tech
Most Wall Street analysts described the ruling as a win for the tech sector. Still, Judge Mehta introduced measures that may shift competition. Google must share parts of its vast search index with “qualified competitors.” This index functions as a massive map of the internet. Selected rivals may even present Google’s results as their own, giving them resources and time to innovate.
Google can keep paying Apple and Samsung for search placement on devices and browsers. Exclusive contracts, however, are no longer allowed, giving partners more freedom to consider rivals. “The remedies may still matter,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, an antitrust expert at Vanderbilt University. She argued that escaping the worst outcome does not make this ruling a true industry win.
She noted that Judge Mehta faced constraints shaped by the Microsoft case, when an appeals court struck down a breakup order. “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.
