The US government’s battle against Google’s dominance in online search has captured worldwide attention. Not since the Microsoft trial in 1998 has Big Tech felt so threatened. One year after Judge Amit Mehta ruled Google a monopolist, he unveiled remedies that some see as mild and others consider meaningful.
Breakup threat fades away
Many expected the court to force structural change. Judge Mehta, however, rejected demands to spin off Chrome, the most widely used browser. The Justice Department also wanted oversight of Android to stop it from strengthening Google’s search and advertising monopoly. Both Chrome and Android emerged intact.
“These tools expanded market share, blocked competition, and monetized dominance,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may try again later this month in a separate case against Google’s advertising technology business.
Artificial intelligence shifts the fight
The Justice Department filed its case in 2020, when generative AI was largely unknown. “GenAI changed the course of this case,” Judge Mehta wrote, noting how quickly investment surged. The pace of change has only accelerated since he found Google a monopolist in search.
Google leads heavily in AI, often placing generated answers above traditional results. Yet Judge Mehta argued that AI competitors bring enough money and technology to challenge Google. He admitted the difficulty of predicting the future of 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 win for Google
Most Wall Street analysts framed the ruling as a victory for Big Tech. Yet Judge Mehta ordered steps that could reshape competition. 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 search placement on devices and browsers. But exclusive contracts are banned, giving partners more leverage to choose rivals. “The remedies could still be meaningful,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, antitrust professor at Vanderbilt University. She argued that escaping the harshest outcome does not make this ruling a full win.
She stressed that Judge Mehta worked within limits set by the Microsoft case, when an appeals court blocked a breakup order. “It was always going to be difficult for this judge to do what his colleague failed to achieve more than twenty years ago,” Allensworth said.
