A federal judge on Tuesday handed the Justice Department a significant victory in its long-running antitrust case against Google, ruling that the company illegally maintained a monopoly over online search — but stopping short of ordering the breakup of its Chrome browser or search business.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta concluded that Google engaged in exclusionary conduct to block rivals and preserve its dominance. The ruling requires Google to dismantle exclusive agreements that make its search engine the default on devices and browsers, and to share valuable search data with competitors.
The outcome, while hailed by the Justice Department as a landmark win, drew criticism from some consumer advocates who argued the decision spared Google from the most severe remedy: structural divestiture.
In a statement, the Justice Department said the ruling marked “the most significant antitrust victory against a technology company in more than two decades.”
“Today’s decision ensures that American consumers will finally see the benefits of competition in online search,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, head of the Antitrust Division. “Google will no longer be able to lock up distribution channels and suffocate rivals.”
Abigail Slater, assistant attorney general for Antitrust, oversaw the case and emphasized the long-term impact of the remedies.
“This is about more than one company — it’s about ensuring that the digital economy works for everyone,” Slater said in a statement posted on X.
“Google abused its gatekeeper role for years. Now, by forcing open the default settings market and requiring data sharing, we are putting choice and fairness back into the hands of users and developers. We will be vigilant in monitoring compliance.”
According to the 276-page order, Google must:
- End its exclusive search distribution deals with Apple, Mozilla, and Android handset makers.
- Allow device manufacturers and browser developers to offer consumers a simple and clear way to select alternative search engines.
- Share certain anonymized search data with qualified rivals to help them improve their products.
- Submit to an independent monitor who will report regularly to the court.
Mehta wrote that these remedies are “narrowly tailored to restore competitive conditions in search without unduly penalizing innovation.”
He rejected calls from some state attorneys general and consumer groups for the forced divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser, saying such a remedy was “not justified by the record” and risked “unnecessary disruption” to the technology ecosystem.
Google said it was reviewing the ruling but argued that its services had always put users first.
“People choose Google because it is helpful, not because they are forced to,” Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, said in a statement. “We remain committed to building products that provide value and innovation.”
The company said it would comply with the court’s order but signaled it may appeal certain aspects of the ruling.
Consumer groups and some lawmakers expressed disappointment that the court stopped short of breaking up Google’s business lines.
The New York Post described the outcome as a “slap on the wrist,” noting that the company avoided the forced sale of Chrome that many critics had hoped for.
By contrast, the Justice Department’s official release stressed that the remedies will “directly benefit consumers, advertisers, and emerging competitors.”
Legal analysts said the decision reflects a cautious judicial approach that balances the need to restore competition with concerns over disrupting widely used digital tools.
“This is a major legal defeat for Google, but it is not the corporate breakup some were expecting,” said Eleanor Fox, a professor emeritus at New York University School of Law who specializes in antitrust. “The court has chosen conduct remedies over structural ones.”
The case, filed in 2020, was the most significant challenge to Big Tech since the government’s antitrust fight against Microsoft in the late 1990s.
The Justice Department argued that Google paid billions annually to companies like Apple to secure default search placements, foreclosing rivals such as Microsoft’s Bing, DuckDuckGo, and emerging players.
During the trial, internal documents showed Google executives viewing default deals as “must-have” arrangements to protect market share.
Mehta found that these deals “substantially foreclosed” competition in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
The ruling is expected to influence other antitrust cases pending against technology giants, including Meta and Amazon. It also underscores a shift by U.S. regulators toward targeting default settings, data access, and distribution channels rather than simply focusing on pricing.
Slater, in her remarks, called the decision “a down payment on restoring competition in digital markets” and said the department would continue to pursue aggressive enforcement.
“Make no mistake, this is a warning shot to dominant platforms across the tech sector,” she said. “The message is clear: the era of unchecked gatekeeping is over.”
Google must begin implementing changes within six months, with the independent monitor in place shortly thereafter.
Appeals are possible, but antitrust experts said the remedies are likely to stand given the judge’s detailed fact-finding.
For consumers, the practical effects may be most visible in how devices prompt them to select search engines during setup and in greater opportunities for rivals to improve their offerings with better access to data.
Whether those changes lead to a meaningful shift in market share remains to be seen.
Google today controls more than 85% of U.S. search queries, according to court findings.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
