The US government’s case against Google’s dominance in search has drawn intense global scrutiny. Not since Microsoft faced trial in 1998 has Big Tech encountered such pressure. One year after Judge Amit Mehta labeled Google a monopolist, he announced remedies that critics call too light while others see as significant.
Google escapes structural break
During the remedies phase, many expected the court to force a breakup. Judge Mehta dismissed demands to spin off Chrome, the world’s leading browser. The Justice Department also sought oversight of Android to prevent Google from reinforcing its grip on search and ads. Both platforms survived intact.
“These products secured share, blocked rivals, and monetized power,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may get another chance later this month in a separate antitrust case targeting Google’s advertising technology dominance.
AI reshapes the courtroom battle
The Justice Department launched its lawsuit in 2020, before generative AI reached consumers. “GenAI transformed this case,” Judge Mehta wrote, citing the flood of investment into the field. The pace only quickened after he found Google guilty of monopolizing search.
Google plays a major role in AI, often pushing generated answers above regular results. Still, Judge Mehta argued that AI challengers hold the financial and technical strength to rival Google in ways older search firms never could. He admitted the challenge of predicting a rapidly changing market. “That is not a judge’s strength,” said Jennifer Huddleston, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. His caution influenced the scope of remedies.
A limited win for Big Tech
Analysts on Wall Street broadly labeled the ruling a victory for technology firms. Yet Judge Mehta required steps that could open competition. Google must share portions of its search index with “qualified competitors.” The index serves as an enormous map of the internet. Some rivals may even reuse Google’s results to gain breathing space for innovation.
Google may keep paying Apple and Samsung for prominent placement. But exclusive contracts are now barred, giving partners room to explore alternatives. “The remedies could still carry weight,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, antitrust professor at Vanderbilt University. She warned that escaping breakup does not equal a full industry win.
She emphasized that Judge Mehta faced boundaries set by the Microsoft case, when a higher court blocked a breakup order. “It was always going to be difficult for this judge to succeed where his colleague was stopped more than twenty years ago,” Allensworth said.
