The US government’s antitrust case against Google has drawn global attention. Not since Microsoft faced trial in 1998 has Big Tech faced such scrutiny. One year after Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist, he unveiled remedies that some critics call weak, while others see as potentially meaningful.
Chrome and Android remain intact
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 remained untouched.
“These platforms built market share, blocked competitors, and monetized dominance,” said John Kwoka, economics professor at Northeastern University. Regulators may return later this month in 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 used. “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 central role in AI, often placing 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 acknowledged 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 guided the remedies he issued.
A partial win for Big Tech
Wall Street analysts largely viewed the ruling as a win for technology companies. Still, Judge Mehta imposed measures that could benefit competitors. 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 placement on devices and browsers. But exclusive contracts are banned, giving partners more flexibility 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 constitute a full industry win.
She added that Judge Mehta operated under limits set by the Microsoft case, when a higher court blocked 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.
