The US government’s case against Google’s dominance in search has drawn global attention. Not since Microsoft faced trial in 1998 has Big Tech confronted such scrutiny. One year after Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist, he issued remedies that some critics call weak, while others argue they could still shape competition.
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 sought oversight of Android to prevent Google from reinforcing its dominance in search and advertising. Both platforms survived intact.
“These products 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 shifts the competitive landscape
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in 2020, before generative AI became mainstream. “GenAI reshaped this case,” Judge Mehta wrote, pointing to the surge of investment in the sector. The pace of change has only accelerated since he ruled Google monopolizes search.
Google plays a major role in AI, often placing generated answers above traditional results. Yet Judge Mehta said AI competitors now hold the resources and technology to challenge Google where older rivals could not. He admitted the difficulty of forecasting 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 outcome for Big Tech
Wall Street analysts largely saw the ruling as a win for technology companies. Still, Judge Mehta imposed measures that could aid 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 republish Google’s results to gain time for innovation.
Google can continue paying Apple and Samsung for prominent placement on devices and browsers. But exclusive contracts are now banned, giving partners more freedom to explore alternatives. “The remedies could still prove meaningful,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, antitrust professor at Vanderbilt University. She emphasized that avoiding a breakup does not equal a complete industry win.
She noted that Judge Mehta operated under limits set by the Microsoft case, when a higher 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.
