— In Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta ordered Google to provide portions of its search results and related data to qualified competitors and placed limits on the company’s default-placement payments, but declined to mandate a breakup or force the sale of Chrome in the long-running federal antitrust case.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Amit P. Mehta directed Google to share defined sets of search results and some data with “qualified competitors.”
- The court imposed restrictions on Google’s payments that secure default search placement on smartphones and in browsers, but did not ban such deals entirely.
- No breakup: the judge rejected structural remedies such as forcing Google to divest Chrome.
- The Justice Department had sought broader data access and stronger limits on Google’s default agreements.
- Google plans to appeal, signaling a prolonged legal path before remedies fully take effect.
- The ruling is a landmark in modern platform antitrust and echoes post-Microsoft debates over behavioral vs. structural fixes.
- Context: DOJ has said Google handles nearly 90% of web searches; in 2021, Google paid $26.3 billion to secure default status across partners, evidence showed.
Verified Facts
Judge Mehta, presiding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a remedies decision requiring Google to share some search results and data with qualified rivals. The order aims to curb how Google maintains its search dominance without dismantling the company.
The court also restricted the scope of default-placement payments that Google uses to ensure its search engine appears by default on smartphones and in web browsers. However, those arrangements were not prohibited outright.
The judge declined government requests to require Google to sell its Chrome browser. He also chose a narrower form of data sharing than the Justice Department had urged.
The decision follows an earlier liability finding that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly in search, after a 10-week trial in 2023. The remedies phase took additional testimony this spring.
Google has indicated it will appeal, meaning key elements of the relief may be tied up in higher courts for years.
| Remedy Area | What the Court Ordered | What DOJ Sought | What the Court Declined |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data access | Share some search results and data with qualified rivals | Broader, deeper data sharing to accelerate competition | — |
| Default payments | Restrictions on scope/terms of default placement deals | Tighter curbs on contracts that keep Google in prime positions | Total ban |
| Structural relief | None | Consider divestitures if needed | Forced sale of Chrome; breakup |
Context & Impact
The ruling is the most consequential platform-antitrust remedy since the Microsoft era and arrives as generative AI reshapes how people find information. AI players such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity are building chatbot-style services that can synthesize sources, plan tasks, and answer queries directly. Google has already infused Search with AI-generated answers and a conversational tab.
By compelling measured data sharing and curbing some default-deal leverage, the court seeks to open room for rivals to improve quality and user experience—key inputs historically reinforced by Google’s scale. The outcome may influence how courts balance behavioral remedies (rules governing conduct) versus structural remedies (divestitures) in other Big Tech cases.
Parallel litigation underscores the stakes. In April, a federal judge in Virginia found Google monopolized parts of ad tech; a two-week remedies hearing is set for September. A separate Texas-led ad tech case, filed in 2020, is paused pending developments in Virginia.
Other major matters are moving in tandem: the FTC’s case against Meta over competition in social networking could see a ruling as soon as this fall; the FTC’s Amazon suit heads to trial in 2027; and the Justice Department has sued Apple over alleged barriers to switching away from its devices.
What’s next
- Appeals: Google’s planned appeal could delay or narrow implementation.
- Qualification criteria: Regulators and the court will define “qualified competitors” and guardrails for data access.
- Monitoring: Expect compliance oversight and potential adjustments if workarounds emerge.
Official Statements
The court emphasized that remedies must be effective but restrained, reflecting judicial “humility” in redesigning markets.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta (decision)
Former antitrust officials called this the defining platform case of the century, while noting that appeals will shape the final outcome.
Bill Baer, former Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
Unconfirmed
- The specific datasets, formats, and latency requirements Google must provide to competitors.
- Exact thresholds and timelines for determining who qualifies for access.
- The precise caps and carve-outs in the new restrictions on default-placement payments.
- Any interim safeguards to prevent misuse of shared data by recipients.
Bottom Line
The court opted for targeted, behavioral fixes over a breakup: limited data-sharing obligations and curbs on default deals are meant to loosen Google’s grip while avoiding disruption. With appeals likely and AI reshaping search, the real test will be whether these remedies meaningfully expand consumer choice and rival viability over the next several years.