The US government’s monopoly case against Google has drawn intense attention across the globe. Not since Microsoft faced trial in 1998 has Big Tech confronted such a challenge. One year after Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist, he outlined remedies that critics call lenient but others argue could still reshape competition.
Google avoids structural changes
During the remedies phase, many feared Google could face a forced split. Judge Mehta rejected demands to spin off Chrome, the world’s most popular browser. The Justice Department also sought oversight of Android to prevent Google from reinforcing its dominance in search and ads. Both products emerged untouched.
“These platforms expanded share, blocked rivals, and monetized power,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may push harder later this month in a separate antitrust case targeting Google’s advertising technology empire.
AI shifts the balance
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in 2020, before generative AI entered the spotlight. “GenAI reshaped the case,” Judge Mehta wrote, pointing to the rapid surge of investment in the technology. The pace has only quickened since his ruling that Google monopolizes search.
Google plays a central role in AI, often highlighting generated responses above standard results. Yet Judge Mehta argued that AI competitors now hold the resources to mount a serious challenge. He admitted the difficulty of predicting the future of such a fast-changing market. “That is not a judge’s strength,” said Jennifer Huddleston, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. His caution guided the remedies he imposed.
A narrow win for Big Tech
Wall Street analysts largely saw the ruling as a victory for technology firms. Still, Judge Mehta ordered measures that could make a difference. Google must share parts of its vast search index with “qualified competitors.” The index acts as a comprehensive map of the internet. Some rivals may even republish Google’s results to gain time for innovation.
Google can continue paying Apple and Samsung for prime search placement on devices and browsers. But exclusive agreements are banned, giving partners freedom to consider alternatives. “The remedies could still prove important,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, antitrust professor at Vanderbilt University. She stressed that avoiding breakup does not equal a complete win.
She noted that Judge Mehta faced limits set by the Microsoft case, where an appeals court overturned a breakup order. “It was always going to be difficult for this judge to do what his colleague failed to achieve more than two decades ago,” Allensworth said.
