The US government’s antitrust case against Google has drawn global scrutiny. Not since Microsoft faced trial in 1998 has Big Tech faced such a challenge. One year after Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist, he introduced remedies that some critics call mild, while others see as potentially significant.
Chrome and Android remain untouched
During the remedies phase, many expected a breakup. Judge Mehta rejected calls to spin off Chrome, the world’s most popular browser. The Justice Department also requested oversight of Android to prevent Google from reinforcing its control over search and advertising. Both platforms remained intact.
“These platforms built market share, blocked competitors, and monetized dominance,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may return later this month with a separate case targeting Google’s advertising technology empire.
AI reshapes the competitive landscape
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in 2020, before generative AI became widely known. “GenAI reshaped this case,” Judge Mehta wrote, pointing to the surge of investment in the sector. The pace of change has accelerated since he ruled Google monopolizes search.
Google plays a major role in AI, often displaying generated answers above traditional results. Yet Judge Mehta said AI rivals now have the funding and technology to challenge Google where older competitors could not. He admitted the difficulty of predicting 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 restrained outcome for Big Tech
Wall Street analysts largely called the ruling a win for technology companies. Still, Judge Mehta imposed measures that could help rivals. Google must share portions of its search index with “qualified competitors.” The index acts as a vast map of the internet. Some competitors 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 deals are now banned, giving partners more flexibility to explore alternatives. “The remedies could still have an impact,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, antitrust professor at Vanderbilt University. She stressed that avoiding a breakup does not equal a total win for the industry.
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 achieve what his colleague failed to do more than twenty years ago,” Allensworth said.
