The US government’s antitrust case against Google has stirred debate worldwide. Not since Microsoft stood trial in 1998 has Big Tech faced such a test. One year after Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist, he announced remedies that some call weak while others believe could still influence the market.
Google keeps its core products
During the remedies phase, many expected Judge Mehta to order a breakup. He rejected demands to spin off Chrome, the world’s leading browser. The Justice Department also wanted oversight of Android to stop Google from tightening its grip on search and advertising. Both platforms remained intact.
“These products built share, blocked rivals, and monetized power,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may try again later this month in a separate case aimed at Google’s advertising technology empire.
Artificial intelligence reshapes the battle
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in 2020, before generative AI became mainstream. “GenAI changed the case,” Judge Mehta wrote, pointing to the billions of dollars flowing into the sector. The pace has only accelerated since his ruling that Google monopolizes search.
Google plays a major role in AI, often showing generated answers above traditional search results. Yet Judge Mehta argued that AI competitors hold the resources and innovation to challenge Google where older firms could not. He admitted the difficulty of forecasting such a rapidly shifting market. “That is not a judge’s strength,” said Jennifer Huddleston, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. His caution shaped the remedies he delivered.
A partial win for the tech sector
Wall Street analysts mostly saw the decision as a victory for Big Tech. Still, Judge Mehta introduced requirements that could matter. Google must share sections of its search index with “qualified competitors.” The index acts as a massive map of the internet. Some rivals may even republish Google’s results to buy time for innovation.
Google can continue paying Apple and Samsung for search placement on devices and browsers. But exclusivity deals are now banned, giving partners more leverage to explore alternatives. “These remedies could still prove meaningful,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, antitrust professor at Vanderbilt University. She stressed that escaping breakup does not equal a total win.
She reminded that Judge Mehta faced boundaries set by the Microsoft case, when a breakup order was overturned. “It was always going to be difficult for this judge to achieve what his colleague was stopped from doing more than two decades ago,” Allensworth said.
