Google avoids breakup in landmark antitrust ruling, faces new restrictions

A federal judge has rejected a bid to break up Google for monopolizing online search and advertising markets, instead imposing more modest restrictions to limit the company’s power.

In a closely watched antitrust case pitting the US government against one of the world’s largest technology companies, District Judge Amit Mehta on Tuesday denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to force Google to divest its Chrome browser and Android products.

However, Mehta agreed with the government that Google must allow competitors to gain a foothold in the market and ordered the company to make more limited changes.

Google will now be required to share some of its search data with rivals and is prohibited from making deals that establish its products, including artificial intelligence, as the “default tools” on mobile devices.

Mehta’s opinion is considered the most significant antitrust ruling concerning the business practices of Big Tech companies since a federal judge’s failed attempt to break up Microsoft in the early 2000s.

Legal experts predict that Google will appeal the decision, which could eventually be reviewed by the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, Google announced that it was concerned by Mehta’s opinion and was reviewing the decision.

The lawsuit, which began during Trump’s first administration, offers a glimmer of hope for other technology companies, including Meta, Amazon, and Apple, that are also facing the risk of being broken up.

This decision was the first of two major antitrust cases Google has faced this year. In the other case, also filed by the Department of Justice, its advertising technology business is at risk of being divested.

The technology sector, particularly the handful of giants that now dominate the digital economy and are the world’s most valuable companies, has faced a series of antitrust pressures under both President Trump and President Joe Biden.

The European Union has also attempted to intervene, using strong online antitrust rules to regulate an industry that the US created and supported with a more “hands-off” approach.

However, it remains unclear how aggressively either government will continue to pursue this issue. Tech CEOs are trying to curry favor with Trump by promising to invest in US projects and donate to his inauguration fund should he win a second term.

Attorney General Pam Bondi praised Judge Mehta’s opinion on Tuesday, stating that the administration “will continue its legal efforts to hold companies accountable for monopolistic practices.”

In Europe, Google received a last-minute reprieve from a penalty for its practice of placing online ads in search results.

The intervention by EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič to delay the fine came as Trump threatened to block the sale of chips and other technology to countries he said were discriminating against American companies.

Looming over many of the cases targeting the largest tech companies is the question of how to apply long-standing antitrust law to a new type of business, like Google, that offers its services to consumers for free.

Bill Kovacic, an antitrust law professor at George Mason University who served as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at the end of the George W. Bush administration, said this case demonstrates that the federal government can win by applying old competition laws to modern digital markets.

In August 2024, Mehta had ruled that Google illegally captured 90% of the internet search market by partnering with iPhone maker Apple to become the default search provider in the Safari web browser.

This agreement essentially excluded potential competitors. Google had made similar deals with phone manufacturers and mobile carriers like Samsung and Verizon. Mehta also found that Google had illegally monopolized the market for ads displayed alongside search results.

Mehta’s decision also points to how the technology sector has changed since the case began in October 2020, prohibiting Google from making Gemini its default AI product on mobile devices.

The ruling notes that the generative AI (GenAI) market is significantly more competitive than the search market, listing models from competitors such as OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic.

Mehta’s initial ruling was delivered after a 10-week trial, followed by a remedies hearing in April. During the second hearing, the Department of Justice asked Mehta to break up the company to dismantle its illegal monopoly.

Other significant antitrust cases that could fundamentally change how the technology sector operates in America and around the world are also pending.

These lawsuits and investigations have emerged as lawmakers and regulators worry that tech companies will corner the artificial intelligence market just as they have in e-commerce, social media, and online search.

Amazon is set to go to trial in early 2027 over allegations that it stifles competition to defraud sellers and consumers, offering a poor shopping experience filled with confusing ads.

Apple faces allegations that by selling billions of iPhones since 2007, it has locked users into its products through designs intended to increase costs for consumers, developers, and artists. Discovery and evidence gathering in that case will continue until early 2027.

Chipmaker Nvidia is the subject of a Department of Justice investigation over its acquisition of the artificial intelligence startup Run:ai.