- Contact Us Now: (202) 589-1834 Tap Here to Call Us
A Slap, Not a Breakup: Judge Mehta’s Google Search Remedies Decision
Introduction
The long-awaited remedy phase of United States v. Google concluded on September 2, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta delivered a carefully calibrated ruling following his August 2024 finding that Google illegally monopolized search. The decision stops short of breaking up the company yet aims to curtail anti-competitive behavior via behavioral constraints.
Key Remedies Imposed
Despite Google’s resounding defeat last year in the U.S. Department of Justice’s case targeting its search monopoly, Judge Mehta only handed down a mixed bag of remedies aimed at propping up search engine rivals and limiting the exclusive nature of its distribution contracts Judge Mehta’s decision imposes several targeted limitations while allowing Google and its partners like Apple to retain significant benefits:
- Ban on Exclusive Deals
GOOGLE may no longer enter or maintain exclusive contracts for distributing Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or the Gemini app.
This curtails Google’s ability to lock competitors out through tied default arrangements. - Conditional Revenue-Share Restrictions
Agreements conditioning revenue-share benefits on distribution or placement of Google’s apps beyond one year are barred. This means Apple and Google can enter annual contracts and maintain the same relationship. - No Divestiture of Chrome or Android
The court rejected calls to mandate a sale of Chrome or Android, finding such remedies too disruptive and poorly tailored to the offending conduct. - Allowed Payments Remain in Place
Google can still pay partners for preloading and default placement, avoiding what the court saw as potentially harmful disruptions to the broader ecosystem. - Data Sharing Mandate
Google must share certain search index and user-interaction data with “qualified competitors,” though not advertising data. - Syndication Services for Rivals
Competitors can buy search and text-ads syndication from Google on commercial terms, though scope and duration are narrower than DOJ sought. - No Choice Screens Required
The court ruled against mandating user-facing choice screens, citing poor precedent and lack of proven pro-competitive effect. - No Keyword Bidding or Granular Ads Data Required
Google won’t be forced to restore exact-match bidding or share granular ad data with advertisers. - Transparency in Auctions Required
Google must publicly disclose material changes to its ad auction systems, enhancing visibility into pricing practices. - Rule-Out of Public Education or Publisher Policy Remedies
Proposals such as nationwide campaigns or forced changes to publisher policies were rejected as unrelated to monopolistic acts. - No Anti-Retaliation or Self-Preferencing Clauses
The judge found these provisions vague or unsupported in evidentiary record. - Technical Committee and Timeline
A six-year remedy term will take effect 60 days after the final judgment, with a Technical Committee appointed immediately to oversee enforcement.
At-a-Glance Table
Remedy Type | Outcome |
Exclusive distribution | Banned |
Revenue-sharing conditions | Restricted beyond 1 year |
Divestiture | Rejected (Chrome, Android retained) |
Anthros payments | Permitted |
Data sharing | Limited to search index and interaction data |
Syndication services | Allowed on commercial terms with limitations |
Choice screens | Not required |
Ads data access | Not required |
Auction transparency | Required |
Broader remedies | Replacement campaigns, policy changes, etc.—rejected |
Enforcement structure | Technical Committee established, 6-year term |
Analysis
1. “Slap on the Wrist”?
Google avoids structural break-ups and retains flexibility to pay for placement—meaning its dominance in search is likely to persist.
2. But Not Toothless
The restrictions on exclusive contracts and the mandated data sharing add meaningful friction to entrenched practices. These could empower startups and AI-based rivals to gain footholds.
3. Generative AI Changes the Equation
Judge Mehta explicitly noted that the rise of generative AI—such as ChatGPT and Perplexity—factors into the calculus, making overly drastic remedies more dangerous and unnecessary.
4. DOJ and Advocates Push Back
Though the DOJ hailed the ruling as a critical step toward reigniting competition, advocates like DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg critiqued it as inadequate, warning consumers will still “suffer.”
5. Echoes of Microsoft Case
The ruling evokes the 2001 Microsoft settlement: no breakup, but behavioral constraints plus a compliance committee.
Conclusion
Judge Mehta’s remedies against Google represent a measured middle ground — disrupting key anti-competitive behaviors while preserving existing infrastructure. Whether this balance suffices to revive competition in search hinges on how well rivals can leverage access to Google’s data and syndication offerings—and whether antitrust enforcers and Congress step in if results disappoint.
Google and the DOJ may appeal, but the decision allows both sides to claim a victory. It could be years before the remedies take full effect. And, as an aside, Apple, who benefits from sharing revenue with Google can also claim victory.
Andre Barlow
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com
202-589-1838