The US government’s antitrust case against Google has drawn worldwide 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 announced remedies that some critics call weak, while others argue they could still affect competition.
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 control over search and advertising. Both platforms survived unchanged.
“These products built market share, blocked rivals, 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 used. “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 highlighting 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 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 imposed.
A partial win for Big Tech
Wall Street analysts largely saw the ruling as a win for the tech sector. Still, Judge Mehta imposed measures that could help rivals. Google must share parts of its search index with “qualified competitors.” The index acts as a vast map of the internet. Some competitors may even reuse 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 stressed that avoiding a breakup does not constitute a full victory for the tech industry.
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.
