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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Data Sharing Mandate
   Google must share certain search index and user-interaction data with “qualified competitors,” though not advertising data.
6. 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.
7. No Choice Screens Required
   The court ruled against mandating user-facing choice screens, citing poor precedent and lack of proven pro-competitive effect.
8. 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.
9. Transparency in Auctions Required
   Google must publicly disclose material changes to its ad auction systems, enhancing visibility into pricing practices.
10. 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.
11. No Anti-Retaliation or Self-Preferencing Clauses
    The judge found these provisions vague or unsupported in evidentiary record.
12. 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

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.”

Meanwhile, groups like the American Economic Liberties Project lambasted the court’s approach as a failure of enforcement.

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

The decision followed a bench trial that began in September 2024 and lasted 15 days, with closing arguments in November 2024. It marks the second major antitrust loss for Google in less than a year, following a separate ruling on its search monopoly.

Remedy Trial Timeline

The remedies phase, which will determine how to address Google’s anticompetitive behavior, is scheduled to begin as a bench trial on September 22, 2025, in the same court before Judge Brinkema. Both parties proposed this date shortly after the liability ruling, and it was confirmed by the court in early May 2025. The trial is expected to focus on evidence and arguments for specific remedies, with a decision potentially following in the months after.

Proposed Remedies to Resolve the Judge’s Concerns

The remedies aim to dismantle Google’s integrated ad tech monopoly, restore competition, and prevent future anticompetitive practices as outlined in the ruling (e.g., tying, exclusive deals, auction manipulation, and data advantages). Proposals from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and plaintiff states are more aggressive, emphasizing structural changes, while Google’s counterproposals focus on behavioral adjustments. Key proposals include:

• DOJ and States’ Proposals (Structural and Behavioral Remedies):
  • Divestiture of Key Assets: Force Google to sell off significant portions of its ad tech business, such as Google Ad Manager (which includes the DFP ad server and AdX exchange). This would break up the “walled garden” that gives Google end-to-end control over ad transactions.
  • Data and Bidding Restrictions: Ban Google from using first-party data from its own products (e.g., YouTube, Search, or Android) to gain unfair advantages in ad bidding or pricing. This addresses concerns about Google’s ability to leverage its ecosystem for preferential treatment.
  • Auction and Pricing Reforms: Prohibit manipulative practices like “last look” advantages in auctions (where Google could adjust bids after seeing competitors’) and require fair, non-discriminatory auction rules to prevent rigging.
  • Interoperability and Non-Exclusivity: Mandate that Google’s tools be compatible with rivals’ products, end exclusive contracts with publishers and advertisers, and allow easier switching to competitors.
  • Oversight and Compliance: Implement monitoring by a court-appointed trustee for up to 10 years, with potential fines for violations.
• Google’s Counterproposals (Primarily Behavioral):
  • Avoid divestitures, arguing they exceed the scope of the ruling and could harm innovation and users. Instead, propose tweaks to auction mechanics (e.g., “rigging ad auctions a little less”) and limited changes to product tying without breaking up assets.
  • Focus on transparency enhancements, such as better data sharing with competitors or minor adjustments to fee structures, to mitigate monopoly effects without structural separation.

The DOJ argues that behavioral remedies alone have proven insufficient in past cases (e.g., Microsoft’s antitrust settlement), necessitating divestitures to fully resolve the integration that fueled Google’s monopoly. The court will weigh these during the September trial, with potential appeals likely regardless of the outcome.

The discussion began with revisiting the tragic siege of the United States capitol that took place on January 6, 2021. Before the siege, on many different platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) President Donald Trump continued to post disputes about the presidential election, specifically mentioning voter fraud. With there being no evidence to verify these disputes, Trump’s campaign for president for a second term was over. Yet it took a violent storming of our nation’s capital to make the world realize that the words on social media and the internet do, in fact, have an effect and insight riots and violence. Any different social media platforms suspended or banned Donald Trump’s account from their sites including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Thus began the great deplatforming.

Why this deplatforming is legal for big tech companies like Google and Apple is because these companies are not in affiliation with the government. This means that the First Amendment is not valid if not stated in their terms of service. If the said company feels that their terms of services have been broken by an individual or feels that said individual is a threat to others, companies have the right to deplatform them. When first signing up on the platforms, every user must agree to the companies terms of services, many just seem to not read them beforehand.

Using Twitter as an example, after being questioned about if it was legal to permanently suspend Donald Trump’s account, Twitter explains their terms of services and the reasoning behind these actions. After analyzing the tweets that Donald Trump was posting and how others were receiving them, they came to the conclusion that they would permanently suspend his account due to the risk of further violence that could be invoked.

With the first Amendment, it becomes very difficult to regulate the dissemination of information in the United States, especially since the government has not created regulations for tech. The only privacy regulator in the United States is the Federal Trade Commission, yet it does not have any real privacy authority. It focuses mainly on deception and unfair business practices.

Section 230 was created to allow internet platforms to grow and to protect platforms from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal with exceptions for copyright violations, etc. This section has also allowed for disinformation campaigns to be spread around the internet and push society apart. With the increased spread of disinformation, creating a privacy statute, revisions of antitrust laws, and reconsidering section 230 need to be on the table to help our society move forward in a positive light.

The question of what the future of technology and democracy will be like since the great deplatforming is still a mystery. Since the capital siege as well as President Joe Biden taking office, Congress has brought forward the idea of reevaluating section 230 to help avoid the further spread of disinformation.

Link to Facebook Live: https://www.facebook.com/georgetownlaw/videos/117256850273091

Lizzy Bensend

Doyle Barlow & Mazard PLLC

According to the New York Times, the smaller rivals, which have largely been publicly quiet until the hearing, finally stepped up to the plate and sounded off on big tech at a hearing in Boulder, Colorado.  The Congressional subcommittee heard stories of technology giants wielding their massive footprints and platforms as weapons, allegedly copying smaller competitors’ features or tweaking their algorithms in ways that stifle competition.

The pleas for regulatory relief resonated with lawmakers, led by Rep. David N. Cicilline (Democrat – Rhode Island), the chairman of the House’s antitrust subcommittee. Cicilline noted that “it has become clear these firms have tremendous power as gatekeepers to shape and control commerce online.”

The executives sounded off on big tech and the bipartisan committee encouraged them to testify about their stories.  The founder and CEO of PopSockets, explained how his company clashed with Amazon over policies that made it hard to sell his products on his preferred terms and prices.

Executives at Sonos, a high-end audio company, and Basecamp, which makes web-based product management tools allege that Google undermines smaller rivals. Sonos has sued Google, alleging patent infringement.  David Heinemeier Hansson the co-founder of Basecamp explained that its competitors have been purchasing ads on Google against the company’s own name, meaning people who search for Basecamp see rivals unless they scroll down their results page.  In other words, Hansson says that Google requires companies “to pay protection money” — or risk obscurity.

Tile makes Bluetooth trackers that can be attached to your personal possessions to help you keep track of them.  A Tile executive explained how Apple rolled out the “Find My” device tool — built into its operating system — that resembled Tile’s app used to find devices making it more difficult for Tile to compete.  From Tile’s perspective, it created a helpful tool for consumers, which was then copied by Apple and then Apple made its app the default on its devices, purposely hurting Tile’s business by making it more difficult for iPhone users to change their default settings, thus creating hurdles for Tile’s app that does not apply to Apple’s app. Tile wants a level playing field.

Along the lines of Tile wanting Apple to simplify what it claims is a too-complicated process right now, Apple shared a statement as part of the congressional hearing suggesting that a fix to this is coming soon. Per the statement shared by a CNBC reporter, Apple noted that:  “When setting up a new device, users can choose to turn on Location Services to help find a lost or misplaced device with ‌Find My‌ ‌iPhone‌, an app that users have come to rely on since 2010. Customers have control over their location data, including the location of their device. If a user doesn’t want to enable these features, there’s a clear, easy to understand setting where they can choose exactly which location services they want enabled or disabled. “…We’re currently working with developers interested in enabling the ‘Always Allow’ functionality to enable that feature at the time of setup in a future software update.”

Democrats and Republicans at the hearing sympathized with the executives.  There was little push back against the testimony of the small rivals.  Indeed, small rivals are encouraged to approach the DOJ Antitrust Division, FTC, and Congress about how the tech giants have used their powerful positions in search, e-commerce, online ads and smartphones to squeeze them out.

Andre Barlow
(202) 589-1838
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com

The notion that antitrust enforcement is motivated by politics has hung over the Trump administration since the Department of Justice’s failed attempt to block AT&T’s acquisition of CNN’s owner, Time Warner and some antitrust experts might point out that the Obama administration also influenced the DOJ’s decisions to sue or settle cases.

While politics has always played a role in setting the antitrust agenda, typically antitrust investigations and enforcement decisions are based on the facts.  Indeed, there is no credible evidence that the big tech firms have engaged in unlawful monopolization or that they have stifled innovation.  In fact, Iowa’s Attorney General Tom Miller, who is well known for his role of leading 20 states in the DOJ’s antitrust suit against Microsoft, said this past July that “[w]e are struggling with the law and the theory,” to bring a case against the big tech firms.

But, this didn’t stop the state AGs from entering the fray.  Republicans are concerned that the tech platforms have suppressed conservative viewpoints, Democrats are worried that these tech companies are simply too big and powerful.  But the announcements of the state AG investigations into Google and Facebook have two things in common: a lack of substance as they can point to no consumer harm and publicity to tout their efforts.

The latest announcement of the state AGs’ investigation of Google – from the steps of the Supreme Court no less – demonstrates just how political antitrust enforcement is becoming.  This type of high-profile activism may benefit state AGs’ political aspirations, but it could impose enormous costs on consumers.  Indeed, the mere threat of numerous investigations could have a chilling effect on innovation and competition for as long as these probes last.

Some state AGs appear to be conflating antitrust and other politically popular pet causes, raising the specter of using antitrust enforcement for political gain.  On the same day of his announcement of the Google investigation, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a fundraising request in an email to his supporters touting his efforts to take on “Silicon Valley titans.” And, according to a copy of the email shared with POLITICO, Paxton asserts “Texans are put at risk” by Google because of the company’s market dominance and privacy practices, and because its “executives clearly display anti-conservative and anti-Republican bias, subtly controlling what Americans see when they search for information about national political issues.”  But political concerns have no place in an antitrust investigation and using antitrust investigations to punish speech raises profound First Amendment concerns.

As the federal antitrust authorities and the state AGs begin their investigations, they must be mindful that companies like Google and Facebook have delivered a tremendous amount of innovation enabling the launch of new products and services that have resulted in many benefits to consumers such as free online search, email, messaging, and artificial intelligence services all while competing in a highly competitive advertising market with the likes of AT&T, Disney, CBS, and Comcast/NBCU.  These multichannel competitors have been locked in the stone age for years, are now finally innovating to compete against the new digital advertising entrants such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon.

In addition to competing with the large entertainment companies for users’ eyeballs and time, Google fiercely competes with Facebook, Amazon, and Apple in various ways, including the development and launch of new products and services such as digital assistant devices, internet of things platforms, and virtual reality products, providing consumers with an abundance of choices and convenience.  In short, the big tech platforms are not successful because they are big and powerful – they are big and powerful because they have been successful.  And that success stems from the nature of a free market economy that provides incentives of firms to innovate and grow.

Without question, this type of efficiency and competition should be preserved.  What’s more, utilizing antitrust enforcement as a political tool is a threat to the rule of law.  Antitrust enforcement should not be turned into a political enterprise to police unrelated, and unsubstantiated, “harms” based on subjective moral and social judgments.  Instead, it must continue to be primarily based on sound theories, objective economic criteria, and evidence of consumer harm.  For years, enforcement decisions were based on the consumer welfare standard – not on populist standards that change with the political winds.

Remember the antitrust laws are focused on consumers and whether any company is disadvantaged by Google’s business practices is not at issue – the central issue to a court will be, do consumers pay more.  And although there may be pockets of disgruntled rivals, there is little to no evidence that consumers have paid more because of the way that Google conducts its business.

Andre Barlow

202-589-1838

On the same day, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) said the DOJ is working with a group of more than a dozen state attorneys general as it investigates the market power of major technology companies.  Delrahim said at a tech conference that the government is studying acquisitions by major tech companies that were previously approved as part of a broad antitrust review announced in July of major tech firms with significant market power.  “Those are some of the questions that are being raised… whether those were nascent competitors that may or may not have been wise to approve,” he said.

On July 23, the DOJ said it was opening a broad investigation into whether major digital technology firms engaged in anticompetitive practices, including concerns raised about “search, social media, and some retail services online.”  The investigations appear to be focused on Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Amazon.com, Inc. and Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), as well as potentially Apple Inc.

More than a dozen states are expected to announce in the coming weeks that they are launching a formal probe.  “I think it’s safe to say more than a dozen or so state attorneys general (that) have expressed an interest in the subject matter,” Delrahim said.  In July, eight state AGs met with U.S. Attorney General William Barr to discuss the effect of big tech companies on competition, and various antitrust actions.

On August 19, the New York Attorney General’s office said it is continuing to “engage in bipartisan conversations about the unchecked power of large tech companies.”  North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein is also “participating in bipartisan conversations about this issue,” his office said.  The DOJ is looking not only at price effects, but also at innovation and quality, and the next steps in its broad antitrust review would be seeking documents and other information.  Delrahim also said that after the July announcement, the companies under investigation “immediately reached out to work with us in a cooperative manner to provide information that we need as far as the investigation.  In June, the FTC told Facebook it had opened an antitrust investigation.  Last month, the FTC resolved a separate privacy probe into Facebook’s practices after the company agreed to pay a $5 billion penalty.

Thoughts

The states joining the DOJ’s and FTC’s investigations are not a surprise.  As many as 39 states have been raising antitrust concerns about the big tech firms with both the DOJ and FTC.  They have similar concerns regarding big tech as the federal antitrust agencies.  The issues relate to whether the markets for online advertising, search, social media, app sales and certain retail sectors are currently competitive.  The state AGs involvement in these investigations adds another layer of complexity for Google, Facebook, and Amazon.  This action by the state AGs should remind everyone that sound antitrust enforcement is not just a federal affair.  Indeed, many of the seminal antitrust cases including cases creating key principles of monopolization and merger law were brought by state attorneys generals.

State attorneys generals use the power under federal and their own state statutes to protect consumers against anticompetitive and fraudulent conduct in credit card, pharmaceutical, computer and many other markets crucial to consumers.

States have significant advantages over federal enforcers.  They are closer to the market and consumers and recognize the direct harm to consumers.  They have the ability to secure monetary damages.  States are often customers and victims of anticompetitive behavior.  State enforcers can bring combined antitrust and consumer protection cases.  And although each state has limited antitrust and consumer protection resources, states increasingly are using multi-state task forces to investigate and prosecute unlawful conduct.

Andre Barlow
(202) 589-1838
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com

It is expected that a lot of time will be devoted to the dominant digital two sided platforms (Google, Facebook, and Amazon) as well as the associated network effects.  The FTC is interested in learning more about how their conduct hinders competition and innovation or how their services actually benefit consumers and enhance competition and innovation.

The hearings and public comment process will provide opportunities for FTC staff and leadership to listen to interested persons and outside experts representing a broad and diverse range of viewpoints.  Additionally, the hearings will stimulate thoughtful internal and external evaluation of the FTC’s near- and long-term law enforcement and policy agenda.  The hearings may identify areas for enforcement and policy guidance, including improvements to the agency’s investigation and law enforcement processes, as well as areas that warrant additional study.

In advance of these hearings, public comments on any of the following topics may be submitted to the FTC:

(1) The state of antitrust and consumer protection law and enforcement, and their development, since the Pitofsky hearings in 1995;

(2) competition and consumer protection issues in communication, information, and media technology networks;

(3) the identification and measurement of market power and entry barriers, and the evaluation of collusive, exclusionary, or predatory conduct or conduct that violates the consumer protection statutes enforced by the FTC, in markets featuring “platform” businesses;

(4) the intersection between privacy, big data, and competition;

(5) the FTC’s remedial authority to deter unfair and deceptive conduct in privacy and data security matters;

(6) evaluating the competitive effects of corporate acquisitions and mergers;

(7) evidence and analysis of monopsony power, including but not limited to, in labor markets;

(8) the role of intellectual property and competition policy in promoting innovation;

(9) the consumer welfare implications associated with the use of algorithmic decision tools, artificial intelligence, and predictive analytics;

(10) the interpretation and harmonization of state and federal statutes and regulations that prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices; and

(11) the agency’s investigation, enforcement, and remedial processes.  The FTC will invite public comment in stages throughout the term of the hearings:

The FTC will accept public comments through August 20, 2018.

The hearings will begin in September 2018 and are expected to continue through January 2019, and will consist of 15 to 20 public sessions.  All hearings will be webcast, transcribed, and placed on the public record. A website for information about the hearings including the schedule as it evolves can be found at www.ftc.gov/ftc-hearings.

If you are interested in filing comments and need help, let me know.

Andre Barlow
(202) 589-1838
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com

The report highlighted how critics and rivals, such as Yelp Inc., are trying to bring Europe’s antitrust approach to Google to the United States.  Margrethe Vestager, the European Union competition commissioner, told CBS that she is intent on stopping Google’s “illegal behavior” in web search, suggesting that the EC isn’t appeased by the company’s proposed solution for the hefty charges the EU filed last year.  “You have to look at the power they have and it’s something the Justice Department I hope takes a serious look at,” Mnuchin said, though he added that “issues of monopolies are out of my lane” and that it’s up to the DOJ to review antitrust violations.

CBS featured guests who argued Google abuses its dominance in search and search advertising.  It didn’t show any evidence that U.S. lawmakers or enforcement agencies will target the company or mention the potential cases Vestager is pursuing against Google for its Android mobile software and advertising business.

Observations:  The Trump administration is signaling that it wants to scrutinize big tech companies’ two sided digital platforms and their associated network effects.  The EU law has a provision that imposes a special responsibility on dominant firms not to hinder competition.  The U.S. antitrust agencies and Makan Delrahim are in favor of using an evidence-based approach meaning there has to be harm to competition and consumers. But even Delrahim has noted that “in certain platform markets involving network effects, there may be barriers to entry or a tendency toward a single firm emerging as the sole winner” and in those situations, “antitrust enforcers may need to take a close look to see whether competition is suffering and consumers are losing out on new innovations as a result of misdeeds by a monopoly incumbent.”  So, the DOJ and FTC antitrust officials should be “open and receptive” to evidence that some incumbent monopolist tech firms may be engaging in exclusionary conduct, such as below-cost pricing aimed at driving out competitors, to gain control of a market.

The Trump Administration has its eye on Google, Facebook and Amazon and the DOJ has noted that if there is “clear evidence of harm to competition in digital platforms, enforcers must take vigorous action and seek remedies that protect American consumers, so that free markets or consumers don’t instead bear the risk of failure.”

Andre Barlow
(202) 589-1838
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com

Delrahim explained that effective antitrust enforcement lessens the need for market regulations and that behavioral commitments imposing restrictions on the conduct of the merged firm represents a form of government regulation and oversight on what should preferably be a free market.

Criticizing the early Obama administration for entering into several behavioral consent decrees that allowed illegal vertical mergers such as Comcast/NBCU, Google/ITA, and LiveNation/TicketMaster to proceed, Delrahim said there is bipartisan agreement that behavioral conditions have been inadequate. He shares the same skepticism that John Kwoka, a law professor and economist who previously served in various capacities at the Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Division, and Federal Communications Commission, and American Antitrust Institute (AAI) President Diana Moss have about using regulatory solutions to address antitrust violations.  Specifically, Delrahim agrees with them that “allowing the merger and then requiring the merged firm to ignore the incentives inherent in its integrated structure is both paradoxical and likely difficult to achieve.”

In Delrahim’s words, “behavioral remedies are the wolf of regulation dressed in the sheep’s clothing of a behavioral decree.”  He identified several practical problems with behavioral conditions, namely:

• They are difficult to structure and negotiate.
• The mere existence of agreed upon arbitrators interfere with the competitive process of negotiating contracts.
• It is difficult to determine their expiration periods. Short remedies may be mere “Band-Aids” and not a fix, while long remedies make the DOJ a full-time regulator.
• They are unduly burdensome for the merged firm and the DOJ because they require monitoring the merged firm’s day-to-day operations.
• And they are challenging to enforce – especially the granular commitments of discrimination and information firewalls – because the DOJ often lacks the resources to do so effectively.

Delrahim then praised the later Obama administration’s efforts to block Comcast’s acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Lam Research’s acquisition of KLA-Tencor rather than impose ineffective behavioral remedies.  Both those deals were abandoned in the face of pressure from the DOJ.

Because he is skeptical that behavioral remedies can be effective, Delrahim said that under his leadership, the Antitrust Division will cut back on the 1300 behavioral consent decrees that are currently in place and focus, instead, on structural remedies to resolve antitrust concerns presented by mergers. He referred to the DOJ’s 2004 Remedies Guidelines, a report that states “conduct remedies generally are not favored in merger cases”.

Nevertheless, Delrahim left open the possibility that the DOJ may accept behavioral commitments in certain circumstances.  He noted that it would be a high standard to meet but that such commitments may be accepted when the DOJ has a “high degree of confidence that the remedy does not usurp regulatory functions for law enforcement.”  Delrahim said that behavioral remedies should avoid taking pricing decisions away from markets and should be simple enough so that the DOJ can oversee them. He further explained that behavioral remedies must completely cure the anticompetitive harms.  This line of thinking is consistent with his friend, former Antitrust Division chief Bill Baer who said that “consumers should not have to bear the risks that a complex settlement may not succeed.”

Finally, Delrahim underlined that if a merger is illegal and a proposed remedy does not resolve the competitive problem, the deal should be blocked and, conversely, if a merger does not raise competitive concerns, the DOJ will no longer accept a behavioral remedy just because it is offered.

Lessons Learned: According to Makan Delrahim, the Antitrust Division will cut back on behavioral commitments in consent orders that regulate conduct.  Instead, the Division will rely more on structural remedies such as divestitures to resolve anticompetitive concerns with mergers.  He made some good points with respect to the adequacy and effectiveness of behavioral remedies, which are difficult to structure and police.  On the surface, this policy announcement is not much different from current and past antitrust thinking.  Delrahim is simply making clear where he stands on the issue.  Divestitures of a business or a product line have always been the preferred remedy for any merger, be it horizontal or vertical.  However, the antitrust agencies have typically used behavioral remedies to resolve antitrust concerns presented by vertical mergers that result in efficiencies in order to retain the procompetitive benefits of the transaction.  But, it has never been the Division’s policy that conduct remedies will always be available and sufficient to resolve vertical antitrust concerns.  And while he acknowledges that behavioral remedies may be adequate where the Division has a high degree of confidence that the remedies can be effective, Delrahim is clearly signaling a far more restrained application of such commitments.  In fact, even under Obama the DOJ forced parties to vertical mergers to abandon their deals when the Division could not negotiate structural and/or behavioral remedies to resolve the anticompetitive concerns.  For instance, in 2016, the DOJ forced Lam Research and KLA-Tencor to abandon their vertical merger when it became clear that behavioral commitments were not sufficient.  In sum, Delrahim’s policy stance signals that he will continue to take an aggressive approach on how the DOJ resolves anticompetitive concerns presented by vertical mergers.  In particular, he seems especially unenthusiastic about behavioral remedies.  The DOJ’s recent lawsuit to challenge AT&T Inc.’s acquisition of Time Warner Inc. suggests Delrahim has the courage of his convictions.  How that deal plays out in court – or out of it – may well set the stage for the enforcement of vertical mergers in the foreseeable future.

Andre Barlow
(202) 589-1838
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com