On Tuesday, Google celebrated a significant win when a federal judge ruled that the tech company can retain its Chrome browser and dismissed many of the penalties proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
This ruling follows the government’s earlier conclusion that Google had illegally monopolized online searches last August, prompting a request for the company to sell its browser and other remedies.
Judge Mehta deemed the breakup “not appropriate for this case”, implying that the DOJ had overstepped its bounds in his lengthy, 230-page opinion.
Despite this, he did implement several restrictions on Google, including prohibitions against prioritizing its own products, sharing specific data, and mandating that competitors offer syndication services.
Here’s what stands out about these decisions:
Google’s relief after a challenging year
The ruling brings a sense of relief for Google, which has faced a difficult year. The search giant has been on the losing side of two antitrust cases and is navigating potential sales.
After Mehta ruled on the illegal dominance in search, Google went to trial and avoided another lawsuit from the DOJ regarding monopolization in advertising technology.
In April, another judge found that Google had unlawfully captured two segments of the ad tech market, further complicating the company’s situation.
With the DOJ seeking breakups in this second case too, Tuesday’s ruling feels like a welcome respite for Google.
William Kovacic, a law professor and former FTC chair, commented, “Overall, they had a good day compared to the potential outcomes.” However, he added cautiously, “It’s perhaps not quite a celebration just yet. There’s still a lot of challenges ahead.”
Google’s mixed feelings about the outcome
While Google hailed the court’s decision, it’s not wholly satisfied with the ruling. The company plans to appeal against the initial findings from the search case once the relief phase concludes.
“Today’s decision reflects the significant changes in the industry with AI, offering users more ways to seek information,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s VP of regulatory affairs. “This reinforces our long-held position since the case began in 2020 — the competition is robust, and users can easily choose their preferred services.” She continued to express their strong opposition to the initial liability decision made in August 2024.
The focus of Mehta’s ruling and the relief stipulations leaned heavily on artificial intelligence (AI), even though this technology wasn’t central to the initial evaluation. The DOJ argued that Google’s edge in search could extend into the AI domain, necessitating various relief measures, including possible breakup. Google pointed out the intense competition posed by emerging AI firms like OpenAI, XAI, and Deepseek.
Mehta acknowledged how the rise of generative AI “shifted the trajectory of this case” in his decision.
Google also faces challenges with the relief measures mandated by the judge. While it can pay companies to list or preload its search engines or AI chatbots, Mehta has prohibited exclusive agreements that prioritize these products.
He has also instructed Google to create specific search indexes and user interaction data available to competitors. “We have concerns about how these mandates might affect users and their privacy, and we are carefully reviewing the court’s decisions,” Mulholland stated.
Implications for the DOJ and future actions
The DOJ has made gains with this ruling. Gail Slater, the head of the DOJ’s antitrust division, deemed the ruling a “substantial victory for Americans.”
“While the court did not grant all the relief requested by the United States, it provided more significant remedies than Google expected,” Slater noted on a social platform.
“Make no mistake. The remedies ordered so far are a considerable achievement for Americans,” she added, indicating that the department will evaluate its options for pursuing further actions.
Slater contextualized the judgment in light of the ongoing AI competition, emphasizing that the court had given a boost to the U.S. in this global race while curbing Google’s anti-competitive practices.
This comes at a tumultuous moment for Slater’s division, following the dismissal of two antitrust staff members in late July amid internal conflicts regarding a merger involving Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks.
The situation has raised concerns about the consistency of antitrust enforcement under the Biden administration, especially given the ongoing scrutiny of major tech companies.
Criticism from antitrust advocates
Not everyone is pleased with the ruling. Advocates for antimonopoly laws argue that the outcome simply amounts to a “slap on the wrist” for Google.
Barry Lynn, executive director of the Open Markets Institute, asserted that the remedial action taken by the judge does little to rectify the violations and essentially indicates that “even the worst legal infractions will be met with leniency.”
“After Google acknowledged its illegal practices, Judge Mehta’s approach seems to shy away from enforcing the law,” Lynn stated.
The American Economic Freedom Project has called on the DOJ and allied states to appeal the ruling.
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of an antitrust nonprofit, used a metaphor: “If someone robs a bank, you wouldn’t ask them to just say thank you for the stolen money.” She likened this to the ruling, suggesting it holds Google accountable without any real remedies to ensure it won’t maintain its monopoly.
Some Democrats have also expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome. Members of the Monopoly Busters Caucus, including Pramila Jayapal, Chris Deluzio, Pat Ryan, and Angie Craig, have voiced their concerns.
Apple benefits from Google’s ruling
A surprising beneficiary of Google’s decision is Apple. The iPhone manufacturer stands to gain significantly from its multi-billion dollar contracts with Google, securing a lucrative deal to have Google as the default search engine for Safari.
According to Bloomberg, Google paid Apple $2 billion in 2022 alone, which accounted for 17.5% of Apple’s operating profit that year.
Daniel Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, described it as a “massive victory for Cupertino” and suggested that, for Google, it’s a significant win that alleviates pressure on its stock.
Though Google is now restricted from exclusive transactions, this could pave the way for Apple to explore further partnerships, particularly related to new AI initiatives like Google Gemini. Ives noted that this ruling could signal an opportunity for a deeper collaboration between the two firms.
Apple did not respond to inquiries for comment.
