In a pivotal antitrust ruling, Judge Amit Mehta has mandated that Google share critical search data with competitors and end exclusive distribution agreements, providing a measured response to the tech giant’s monopoly without resorting to a breakup.
On September 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued a remedies order in the landmark United States v. Google case, following his August 2024 determination that Google is an illegal monopolist in online search. The decision avoids the extreme measure of breaking up the company, such as spinning off Chrome or Android, which the Department of Justice had advocated for during the remedies trial in May 2025.
Instead, Mehta ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to “qualified competitors” as deemed by the court. This data, which includes Google’s massive inventory of web content, will help other companies develop competitive search engines by providing insights into how users interact with search results and what content is available online.
Furthermore, Google must offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals to display Google’s results as their own temporarily. This is intended to give emerging competitors, particularly in the generative AI space, the resources and time needed to innovate and build their own capabilities without being immediately crushed by Google’s dominance.
The ruling also bars Google from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts related to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app. For instance, Google cannot condition revenue share payments on the exclusive placement of its apps, allowing partners like Apple and Samsung to potentially work with other search providers without penalty.
Judge Mehta emphasized the rapid changes in technology, particularly the rise of generative AI, which he noted could disrupt Google’s monopoly. In his opinion, he wrote that AI companies might mount financial and technological challenges that traditional search engines could not, influencing his decision to opt for less drastic remedies that account for future market dynamics.
The Department of Justice, which filed the case in 2020 during the Trump administration and was joined by 49 states, views the ruling as a victory. Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater stated that the remedies will help restore competition, but the DOJ is reviewing options for additional relief. Google, on the other hand, is likely to appeal, as it has previously indicated.
Experts are mixed on the ruling’s effectiveness. Some, like Rebecca Hay Allensworth of Vanderbilt Law School, see the data-sharing and contract prohibitions as meaningful steps that could pry open the market. Others, such as John Kwoka of Northeastern University, argue that avoiding a breakup lets Google off too lightly, given the severity of its monopolistic practices.
This case is part of a larger antitrust effort against Big Tech, with another case targeting Google’s advertising technology monopoly still underway. The outcome here could set precedents for how courts handle similar cases in the future, balancing the need for competition with the realities of technological innovation.
