Google’s Monopoly Power Curbed, Not Broken, in Landmark Verdict

A federal judge has opted to curb Google’s monopoly power through targeted restrictions rather than breaking up the company, in a landmark decision that will reshape the online search market. While Google gets to keep its Chrome browser, it now faces a new reality of mandated data sharing and a ban on the exclusive deals that helped build its empire.
The verdict from Judge Amit Mehta follows his earlier finding that Google illegally maintained its monopoly over search and search advertising. Instead of the corporate divestiture sought by the Department of Justice, the judge chose a path of behavioral remedies. The most impactful of these is the requirement for Google to share search data, which could fuel the growth of competitors.
This decision reflects a judicial balancing act. On one hand, it acknowledges Google’s illegal conduct and the need for a remedy. On the other, it takes into account the disruptive potential of a breakup and the emerging competitive threat from artificial intelligence, which the judge believes will naturally erode Google’s dominance over time.
For the tech industry, the ruling could serve as a blueprint for future antitrust cases. It suggests a judicial preference for remedies that promote competition through access and interoperability, rather than the blunter instrument of divestiture. While critics argue this approach is too lenient, it represents a significant, court-ordered intervention into Google’s core business practices.