Lead: On Sept. 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued a remedies ruling in the Justice Department’s search monopoly case against Google, limiting many of the DOJ’s proposed fixes — including a forced sale of Chrome — and allowing Google to keep key default search deals, a decision that tempers recent momentum toward breaking up major tech platforms.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Amit Mehta narrowed remedies in the DOJ’s Google search case on Sept. 4, 2025, rejecting some of the government’s most aggressive proposals.
- The ruling lets Google retain browser defaults and existing distribution agreements with Apple and Mozilla.
- Mehta cited the rapid rise of generative AI as a factor in his restrained approach and left open the possibility of revisiting remedies later.
- Advocacy groups and some lawmakers criticized the limited remedies and urged appeal or congressional action.
- Google’s stock rose sharply after the decision, while the DOJ signaled it is reviewing options for further relief.
- The court’s approach may shape outcomes in other tech antitrust cases and influence enforcement strategy going forward.
Verified Facts
1) Case background: The Justice Department sued Google for monopolizing internet search; in 2024 Judge Mehta found Google to be an illegal monopolist in search. The Sept. 4, 2025 ruling addresses what remedies the court will order to restore competition.
2) Remedies narrowed: Mehta declined to force Google to sell its Chrome browser and trimmed other proposed remedies, including limits on data-sharing and certain payment bans tied to default placements. The judge said some measures could be revisited if competition does not improve.
3) Default deals preserved: The decision allows browser partners such as Apple and Mozilla to continue their revenue-bearing search agreements with Google, a point those companies and the court noted as a risk of unintended consequences.
4) AI cited in reasoning: The opinion referenced the emergence of well-funded generative AI competitors as a changing market condition that reduced the need for more intrusive remedies immediately.
5) Next steps: The DOJ said it will review the opinion and consider its options, including appeal. Separately, the department will argue remedies in a Virginia case concerning Google’s ad tech business later this month.
Context & Impact
The ruling marks the first time one of the recent high-profile tech antitrust prosecutions has reached a remedies decision, setting an early benchmark for how courts may balance structural fixes against fast-moving market changes in technology.
For regulators and plaintiffs, Mehta’s restrained remedy package underscores the difficulty of translating liability findings into enforceable structural changes when judges weigh potential collateral effects and industry evolution.
Industry implications:
- Big tech firms gain a precedent that courts may avoid drastic breakups when remedies carry broad disruption risks.
- Smaller search and AI competitors may gain time but not immediate access to default distribution channels preserved by the ruling.
- Investors treated the ruling as positive for Google, evidenced by a roughly 9% intraday stock increase reported after the decision.
“We continue to review the opinion and will consider the Department’s options and next steps regarding seeking additional relief.”
Gail Slater, DOJ Antitrust Chief (statement)
Explainer
Unconfirmed
- Whether generative AI startups will materially displace Google in everyday search remains a developing claim and is not yet proven in market outcomes.
- The likelihood and timeline of a DOJ appeal or congressional reform are contingent on internal decisions and legislative timelines, so outcomes remain uncertain.
Bottom Line
Judge Mehta’s remedies ruling recalibrates expectations for how far courts will go to unwind major tech platforms: liability was affirmed in earlier findings, but immediate structural upheaval was avoided. The decision shifts the fight to appeals, parallel cases (like the upcoming ad tech remedies hearing), and to Congress and regulators, who may pursue statutory fixes if courts prove reluctant to mandate dramatic breakups.