On Tuesday, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a landmark ruling outlining the remedies in Google’s search antitrust case, which the big tech firm lost last year. The court had previously found that Google had monopoly power in search markets, and that its exclusive distribution agreements had anticompetitive effects. The remedies are generally being viewed as “narrowly tailored” – meaning they are likely to hold up. Google’s share price is up nearly 10% as of this writing.

The remedies bar Google from engaging in exclusive distribution agreements for Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini. (Google says it’s already stripped exclusivity provisions from its agreements.) The remedies also prevent Google from tying its products (e.g. Play Store) to Search. Google will be required to share “certain search index and user-interaction data” with “Qualified Competitors” – but not granular query-level data – on a one-time basis and priced at the marginal cost. (The CEO of DuckDuckGo called this a “nothingburger.”) Google will also have to syndicate search results to rivals on ordinary commercial terms (i.e. above marginal cost) for 5 years.

Notably, Google will not have to divest Chrome or Android (as the DOJ had asked for), will not have to introduce choice screens, and will still be able to pay for placement. This means that Google will likely be able to continue to pay Apple $20B+ annually to be the default search provider on Safari. It could take some of the air out of the search engine that Apple is rumored to be working on.

In general, Judge Mehta opted to err on the side of avoiding harm to consumers and downstream parties. In terms of remedies, Mehta was hemmed in by data-privacy concerns if granular data was shared with rivals; the likelihood of product degradation of Chrome and Chromium-based browsers if Chrome was divested; and the reality that keeping Google from making payments could actually help Google at this stage, and do harm to other parties (e.g. Mozilla, Apple) and inhibit competition. Mehta also sought to avoid remedies that didn’t fit the conduct or were too prescriptive (e.g. product design requirements).

Because of the complex and technical nature of the remedies, the two parties have been directed to confer and present a joint revised final judgment by Sept 10 consistent with the outlined remedies, which would be approved and entered by Judge Metha. The court will also establish a Technical Committee to enforce the final judgment for 6 years.

Now that remedies are near, Google can soon appeal and seek to escalate up to the Supreme Court, which could mean this will play out for another 2-4 years. Google had previously asserted its intent to appeal, although that was before remedies were handed down in a general win for Google. Still, Google likely takes issue with the original finding that it is a monopolist, in addition to chafing at the data-sharing with rivals and oversight by a Technical Committee not under its control. There’s also the possibility the court will “revisit a payment ban (or a lesser remedy) if competition is not substantially restored.” It’s not clear whether the juice would be worth the squeeze on an appeal though, given the likelihood the remedies will hold up and the possibility an appeal could open the door to a worse outcome for Google.

The Justice Dept (DOJ) – while claiming the remedies as a victory – is also “weighing [its] options and thinking through whether the ordered relief goes far enough.” Google still faces remedies in its other antitrust loss related to adtech, and industry watchers believe it may not get off as lightly there. The DOJ may focus its attention on that case, where there’s still a possibility of a breakup.

The interplay among search, browsers, and AI is front and center here. One of the reasons why Mehta took a lighter hand with remedies is the looming threat of generative AI over Google’s search business. The irony, however, is that Google’s dominance in search and browsers gives it substantial leverage in the current and future AI race, especially in terms of distribution and user data. The race for distribution is fundamentally the race to build the next consumer tech giant in the AI era, where the bases of competition will include personalization, relevance, trust and data security. Among AI products, Gemini is #2 behind OpenAI’s ChatGPT and closing the gap quickly, with nearly 90% of its user base on Android.

Jun 6 2025 (3 Shifts): AI players on the hunt for distribution partners

Aug 9 2024 (3 Shifts): Google’s antitrust loss in search and what it means