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 labeled Google a monopolist, he announced remedies that some call weak, while others see as potentially impactful.
Google keeps Chrome and Android
During the remedies phase, many expected a forced 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 hold on search and advertising. Both platforms survived intact.
“These products built market share, blocked competitors, and monetized power,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may return later this month in a separate case targeting Google’s advertising technology dominance.
AI shifts the competitive landscape
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in 2020, before generative AI became widely known. “GenAI changed the course of this case,” Judge Mehta wrote, citing the surge of investment in the field. The pace of change has accelerated since his ruling that Google monopolizes search.
Google plays a leading role in AI, often placing generated answers above standard results. Yet Judge Mehta said AI rivals now possess the funding and technology to challenge Google where traditional 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 limited win for the tech sector
Wall Street analysts largely viewed the decision as a win for Big Tech. Still, Judge Mehta required measures that could aid rivals. Google must share parts of its search index with “qualified competitors.” The index serves 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 prominent placement on devices and browsers. But exclusivity agreements are banned, giving partners more freedom to consider alternatives. “The remedies could still have an impact,” said Rebecca Hay Allensworth, antitrust professor at Vanderbilt University. She stressed that avoiding breakup does not equal a full victory for the industry.
She added that Judge Mehta operated under 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 achieve what his colleague failed to accomplish more than twenty years ago,” Allensworth said.
