This week, D.C. District Court Judge Amit Mehta delivered his long-awaited remedies decision in U.S. v. Google. In the 230-page document, Judge Mehta charted a middle course that reflects both the strength and limitations of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) case against the search giant. In part, he readily admitted that courts “must approach the task of crafting remedies with a healthy dose of humility” because judges “are neither economic nor industry experts.” But even though Google escaped the worst outcome of having parts of its business completely cleaved off, the company will still be required to share key information with its competitors.
The case centered on Google’s exclusive distribution agreements with companies like Apple, Mozilla, and wireless carriers that made Google the default search engine for millions of devices. Because of the complexity of the case, it was split into two parts. In August 2024, Judge Mehta ruled that Google was indeed a monopolist that had used these exclusive contracts to maintain its dominance, setting up the recent ruling that aimed to restore competition.
Google escaped the worst possible outcome. The DOJ wanted to force Google to divest its Chrome browser, but as Mehta wrote, “Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints.” The court also refused to ban Google’s lucrative payments to distribution partners such as Apple, recognizing that cutting off those payments would impose “substantial—in some cases, crippling—downstream harms.”
But the court wasn’t toothless. Among other changes, Google will now have to
- Share search index data and user interaction data with qualified competitors;
- Provide search result syndication services to competitors for five years;
- Make search text ads syndication available under fair terms; and
- Publicly disclose material changes to its ad auction systems.
What makes this decision truly fascinating is how it grapples with generative AI. Mehta spent considerable time analyzing how products like ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity are changing the search landscape, noting that “tens of millions of people use GenAI chatbots…to gather information that they previously sought through internet search.” As I explained last December, generative AI is a technology that barely existed when this case began, but now represents the biggest potential threat to Google’s search dominance. Thankfully, Mehta recognized that the competitive landscape is shifting.
Implementation Challenges
The practical challenges of implementing these remedies are enormous. The court established a Technical Committee to oversee compliance, but questions abound. How exactly does one anonymize massive datasets containing sensitive user queries while also preserving their utility for competitors? What constitutes a qualified competitor worthy of receiving Google’s data? How do you prevent competitors from simply free-riding on Google’s innovations rather than investing in their own?
Still, the court’s data-sharing remedies rest on shaky economic foundations. If competitors need Google’s data to compete effectively, this suggests the value of Google’s service goes beyond mere default placement, which is what the case is centered on.
Research on the European experience reinforces this skepticism. In 2020, the European Commission began requiring Google to show Android users a choice screen with four search engine options during device setup. As I explained previously:
And how did the change affect the market? According to a trio of economists, it moved the market share about 1 percentage point. It’s not nothing, but it does show just how small an impact we are talking about.
If exclusive deals were the primary source of Google’s dominance, we’d expect much larger effects from remedies designed to eliminate those advantages.
What’s Next
The broader implications of this ruling extend far beyond Google itself, as it could reshape American antitrust enforcement. The biggest question isn’t just whether either party will appeal, but what this decision means for the Neo-Brandeisian movement that has gained significant influence within Democratic policy circles over the past several years.
This loose coalition of academics, policymakers, and activists has pushed for a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement, arguing that traditional economic analysis has been too narrow in its focus on consumer prices while ignoring broader concerns about market concentration and corporate power. Neo-Brandeisians might view this decision as validation that current antitrust laws are insufficient for addressing Big Tech’s dominance, potentially fueling calls for legislative reforms that would make structural breakups easier to achieve.
Still, the decision’s emphasis on preserving innovation and avoiding “crippling downstream harms” suggests the courts remain skeptical of the most radical restructuring proposals. This tension between ambition and pragmatism will likely define the next phase of tech regulation, especially as similar cases against Apple, Amazon, and Meta work their way through the system. The outcome may ultimately determine whether American antitrust policy takes a sharper turn toward European-style intervention or maintains its current trajectory of cautious, incremental reform. Let’s hope for the latter.
The post Google Avoids Breakup but Faces New Data Sharing Requirements appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.
