In the last year, the US government seemed to be on something of a winning streak, clinching victories in not one<\/a>, but two<\/a> of its landmark antitrust cases against Google. On Tuesday, however, the Justice Department finally hit a stumbling block. Judge Amit Mehta, who a year ago forcefully proclaimed Google to be an illegal monopolist, granted only a handful of the government\u2019s requested remedies beyond what Google itself had conceded. He rejected the DOJ\u2019s most aggressive proposals, like forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser, and significantly narrowed others, like around the amount of data Google would have to share with rivals to help them compete.<\/p>\n Of the numerous tech antitrust cases that the government brought in the past few years, this is the first case to receive a ruling on remedies. It\u2019s possible that judges in other cases will choose a harsher approach. The DOJ and Google will meet in a Virginia courtroom later this month to argue the appropriate remedies to restore competition to the ad tech market a judge found that Google also monopolizes. A breakup is still on the table there<\/a>.<\/p>\n To prevent a breakup, a tech titan only needs the system to flinch once<\/p>\n Nevertheless, Mehta\u2019s cautious approach to resolving Google\u2019s search monopoly is good news not just for Google but for all the tech giants, and an indication of just how difficult breaking them up will be. Enforcers across administrations overcame years of stagnation to bring cases against four of the largest tech companies. Mehta\u2019s own 2024 ruling against Google, declaring it had an illegal monopoly in search, was a historic one. But in the end, it seems, substantial change to restore competition will not be forthcoming. To prevent a breakup, a tech titan only needs the system to flinch once.<\/p>\n That obstacle is further complicated by the fast-moving nature of the tech industry \u2014 something that many foresaw as a likely issue, but which became a highly visible complication with the explosion in generative AI tech. Mehta pointed to the rise of the AI industry to justify backing away from some remedies he might have given more consideration to before the new technology shook it up. While acknowledging that allowing Google to keep paying for default distribution spots for its search engine \u201ccould blunt the effectiveness of the remedies imposed,\u201d he reasoned that \u201callowing Google to continue making payments is more palatable now than when the liability phase concluded.\u201d That\u2019s largely due to the fact that well-funded generative AI startups are finally showing signs that they might disrupt the market for internet search, a field that tech insiders had previously described as the \u201cbiggest no-fly zone\u201d in venture funding.<\/p>\n Mehta left the door open to revisiting some of his remedies should his measured approach fail to restore competition in online search. He said he\u2019s \u201cprepared to revisit a payment ban (or a lesser remedy) if competition is not substantially restored through the remedies the court does impose,\u201d for example.<\/p>\n \u201cImposing liability in name only is pure judicial cowardice\u201d<\/p>\n This is a far cry from \u201cbreak \u2019em up,\u201d and the politicians and advocacy groups who pushed for tech antitrust in the last decade are now slamming Mehta\u2019s latest ruling as feckless. Open Markets Institute executive director Barry Lynn said Mehta\u2019s ruling \u201clets Google and every other monopolist know that even the most egregious violation of law will be met with a slap on the wrist.\u201d American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) executive director Nidhi Hegde said in a statement, \u201cImposing liability in name only is pure judicial cowardice. This ruling leaves the public unprotected, crucial and evolving markets concentrated, and worse, sends a signal that will embolden monopolists everywhere.\u201d Lawmakers including Warren, who chanted \u201cbreak \u2019em up\u201d during her 2020 presidential bid, called on the DOJ to appeal.<\/p>\n Still, DOJ antitrust chief Gail Slater struck a victorious tone in her statement on the ruling. \u201cThe first Trump administration sued Google to restore competition for millions of Americans subjected to Google\u2019s monopoly abuses,\u201d she said in a statement. \u201cToday, the second Trump administration has won a remedy to do just that.\u201d Slater acknowledged that Mehta failed to grant all of the remedies the DOJ requested and said they would \u201ccontinue to review the opinion to consider the Department\u2019s options and next steps regarding seeking additional relief.\u201d But her comments framed the thrust of the ruling as judicial confirmation on the \u201cneed to restore competition to the long-monopolized search market,\u201d and proclaimed, \u201cUnder President Trump\u2019s leadership, the Justice Department is Making America Competitive Again.\u201d<\/p>\n Reactions from the tech industry and Wall Street appear to paint a different picture. Google and its allies, still miffed by the underlying ruling that deemed it a monopoly, sounded restrained in their statements. Still, Google\u2019s stock price shot up 9 percent<\/a> the day after the ruling, avoiding the worst-case scenario for the company in the eyes of its investors.<\/p>\n Other tech companies, like Apple and Mozilla, breathed a sigh of relief. Both will be allowed to retain their lucrative search deals<\/a> with Google to keep it the default in their browsers. During the remedies trial, a Mozilla executive had warned that losing that revenue would be existential for the Firefox browser<\/a>, and Apple executive Eddy Cue similarly framed<\/a> the revenue hit as a pure loss for Apple that would mostly save Google money. Laura Chambers, interim CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, said in a statement that \u201cit\u2019s encouraging to see the Court recognize the risk of unintended consequences when trying to improve search competition \u2014 and not just for browsers like Firefox, but for the future of the open web.\u201d<\/p>\n While lawyers across the tech industry digest what Mehta\u2019s 230-page ruling would mean for their businesses, advocates are calling for the DOJ to appeal. Some are even turning back to an option that\u2019s looked increasingly broken in recent years: Congress. \u201cWe believe Congress should now step in to swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field,\u201d Gabriel Weinberg, CEO of search competitor DuckDuckGo, said in a statement. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who previously introduced a substantive bill<\/a> to prevent tech platforms from self-preferencing their own products, used the moment to call for its revival. \u201cToday\u2019s ruling is a reminder of Google\u2019s sweeping power over the online economy,\u201d she said in a statement, \u201cbut the limited remedies ordered by the court demonstrate why we need additional rules of the road for Big Tech.\u201d<\/p>\n 2 Comments<\/a>Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Lauren FeinerClose Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n PlusFollow<\/p>\n See All by Lauren Feiner<\/a><\/p>\n AnalysisCloseAnalysis<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n PlusFollow<\/p>\n See All Analysis<\/a><\/p>\n AntitrustCloseAntitrust<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n PlusFollow<\/p>\n See All Antitrust<\/a><\/p>\n GoogleCloseGoogle<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n PlusFollow<\/p>\n See All Google<\/a><\/p>\n PolicyClosePolicy<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n PlusFollow<\/p>\n See All Policy<\/a><\/p>\n PoliticsClosePolitics<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n PlusFollow<\/p>\n See All Politics<\/a><\/p>\n RegulationCloseRegulation<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n PlusFollow<\/p>\n See All Regulation<\/a><\/p>\n ReportCloseReport<\/p>\n Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n PlusFollow<\/p>\n![\"Lauren](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/2023-05-07_16.33.21_-_Lauren_Feiner_Headshot_-_8X10_-_001.0.jpg\"\/)
Lauren Feiner<\/p>\n