Judge Amit P. Mehta’s latest ruling in the U.S. Google Search antitrust case spares the company from the harshest remedies sought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 49 states, even as it emphasizes how the rise of AI-driven search is reshaping competition.
Chrome stays, default deals limited
Google’s Chrome browser will remain under its control, and the company will not be forced to sell Android unless it fails to prove within five years that its dominance harms mobile search competition. Mehta also rejected calls to halt Google’s payments to rival browser developers for making Google Search their default option.
While the trial highlighted how valuable Google’s Safari default is—with the company paying Apple around $20 billion annually plus 36% of search ad revenue from Safari—Mehta stopped short of banning such deals outright. Instead, he imposed narrower limits: Google cannot strike default-placement agreements for Google Search, Google Assistant, or Gemini AI. He suggested browsers could be required to let users set private browsing defaults with competing search engines.
AI shifts the competitive landscape
In a 230-page opinion, Mehta argued that generative AI platforms and chatbots already pose a credible challenge to Google’s dominance. He wrote: “The money flowing into this space, and the speed with which it has arrived, is staggering. These companies are financially and technologically positioned to compete with Google more effectively than any traditional search rival in decades—perhaps with the exception of Microsoft.”
This perspective helped Mehta dismiss more extreme remedies, including a forced sale of Chrome—a prospect that had drawn multibillion-dollar bids from firms like Perplexity—and which he called “incredibly messy and highly risky.”
Sharing search index data with competitors
Instead of breakups, the remedies center on giving rivals the tools to build their own large-scale indexes of the web. In order for other search engines to decide which pages to crawl, Google must grant them access to a section of its search index at "marginal cost." Competitors will still need to build their own crawlers, extract data, and process it into a working index.
Additionally, for the next five years, Google will be required to license syndicated search results to rivals on standard commercial terms, giving them a temporary boost as they develop independent infrastructure.
Rejected remedies and publisher concerns
Mehta struck down proposals that would have empowered publishers against Google, such as banning exclusive content deals (like AI-training agreements with Reddit) or allowing publishers to veto use of their data in AI systems. He ruled that these measures fell outside the scope of the case and lacked sufficient proof of harm.
He did, however, approve one advertising-related requirement: Google must publicly disclose changes in its ad auction mechanics. This follows revelations during trial that Google secretly raised prices in ways that were difficult for advertisers to detect.
Industry reactions
Mozilla CEO Laura Chambers said on
LinkedIn that she was encouraged by the court’s recognition of potential unintended consequences for independent browsers and the open web. But analysts at MoffettNathanson described the decision as little more than
“a slap on the wrist,” calling it a
“home run for the status quo” that leaves Google and Apple in an advantageous position.
Google responded in a blog post from VP of Government Affairs Lee Ann Mulholland, repeating its view that people can already choose their preferred services. The company expressed concern about the privacy risks of mandatory data sharing with rivals and confirmed it will appeal.
The DOJ, meanwhile, said it will continue evaluating the opinion and considering further options for relief. Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater stated: “The decision recognizes the need for remedies that open the market for general search services after more than a decade of stagnation. We will review our next steps carefully.”
The bottom line: Google escapes structural breakups but faces new obligations to share data and restrain certain default deals. The ruling leaves the company’s core business model largely intact, even as AI-driven challengers loom on the horizon.
Posts
0 Comments