After a five-year legal battle that originated during the waning weeks of President Donald Trump‘s first administration, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta recently ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in search. Yet, Mehta said he would not force the divestiture of the search giant’s Chrome browser or Android operating system.

Instead, the court banned exclusive agreements that prioritized Google’s search engine and required Google to share a limited search index and user‑interaction data with competitors.

Recommended Stories

• Inside Scoop: Degraded American culture, flag burning, and Cracker Barrel lessons
• When the internet buries Trump, it's a little different
• Not all conservatives agree with Trump on flag burning order

Mehta’s ruling steered clear of sweeping structural interventions.

“Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints,” Mehta wrote.

Emphasizing the rapid evolution of the industry, particularly from generative artificial intelligence, Mehta noted, “There are strong reasons not to jolt the system and to allow market forces to do the work.”

Mehta’s order instructed that Google “shall offer Qualified Competitors search and search text ads syndication services” aimed at helping rivals develop viable alternatives while they build their own infrastructure. The judge also directed that Google must share certain data sets, but carefully limited to those that flowed from its anticompetitive conduct, seeking to avoid judicial overreach.

Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, proclaimed, “You don’t find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly, “signaling immediate calls for appeal.

Still, not all reactions were negative.

Robert Winterton, vice president of public affairs for tech industry group NetChoice, said, “The court’s nuanced approach has prevented the DOJ from dismantling a leading American tech company at a pivotal time in history, ensuring President Trump’s administration stays true to its promise to empower American innovation.”

The Department of Justice spun the ruling as a step toward loosening Google’s grip, claiming victory even if the ruling fell short of a structural breakup the agency requested from the court.

In his 230-page opinion, Mehta emphasized technological shifts in AI as possible natural counterbalances. He wrote, “The emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case.” He elaborated, “No witness at the liability trial testified that GenAI products posed a near-term threat to GSEs,” but “the very first witness at the remedies hearing … placed GenAI front and center as a nascent competitive threat.” He referenced market forces such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Perplexity as evolving checks on Google’s dominance.

But some thought the remedies lacked teeth. Google competitor DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg wrote, “We do not believe the remedies ordered by the court will force the changes necessary to adequately address Google’s illegal behavior.” She urged congressional action to “swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field.”

Google, via its regulatory affairs office, earlier characterized the DOJ’s proposed remedies as beyond the scope of the actual violations, saying, “Remedies should match the alleged violations,” citing Supreme Court precedent.

In reaction to the ruling, Google said the “court did recognize that divesting Chrome and Android would have gone beyond the case’s focus on search distribution and would have harmed consumers and our partners.”

In a statement, Google wrote that the court’s “decision recognizes how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information.” It added that the company has concerns about how the imposed limits on distribution and mandated data sharing will affect their users and privacy.  

Wall Street rewarded the conservative ruling. Stock of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, closed up for the day. Apple also benefited modestly, with shares rising on the prospects that current default agreements could persist.

TRUMP’S TIKTOK DEAL ‘HOSTAGE’ TO CHINA TRADE TALKS AS DEADLINE LOOMS

Google had 30 days from the ruling to appeal the initial August 2024 liability finding that it violated U.S. antitrust laws; the company has indicated it will pursue that option. The appeals process could stretch into 2027 or later.

It remains to be seen if Congress will act to pass more stringent competition laws aimed at the quickly innovating tech industry and what effect, if any, this case has on the numerous other Big Tech antitrust suits in the courts. All of this has continued against the backdrop of aggressive European Union tech regulations and fines against U.S. tech giants and tense trade negotiations with the Trump administration.

Jessica Melugin is the director of the Center for Technology and Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a 2025 Innovators Network Foundation antitrust and competition policy fellow.