Despite a prior ruling that Google illegally monopolized the search market, a federal judge’s final remedy is being widely criticized as a “slap on the wrist” that fails to address the core issue. The decision rejected the Department of Justice’s call to break up the company by selling its Chrome browser and allows Google to continue its multi-billion dollar payments to Apple.
Judge Amit Mehta’s decision was heavily influenced by the rise of generative AI, which he viewed as a future check on Google’s power. However, opponents of the tech giant, including competitor DuckDuckGo, argue that this view is shortsighted. They contend that the ordered remedies—sharing some search data and ending exclusivity deals—are too weak to foster genuine competition in the here and now.
The government had sought to dismantle the financial arrangements that it argued cemented Google’s monopoly, particularly the estimated $20 billion paid annually to Apple to be the default search engine on its devices. By allowing these payments to continue, the court has preserved a system that critics believe stifles innovation and prevents smaller search engines from gaining a foothold.
While the Department of Justice is weighing its options for an appeal, the outcome is being hailed as a major victory for Google and the broader Big Tech industry. Analysts noted the ruling is a “home run for the status quo,” signaling that even when found guilty of monopolistic practices, the largest tech firms may escape transformative structural changes.
