Mumbai: Google has avoided a forced breakup of its search business, but a U.S. federal judge has tentatively imposed sweeping behavioral remedies to curb its anticompetitive practices.
U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta outlined measures on Tuesday that bar Google from entering or maintaining exclusive deals tying the distribution of Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini to other apps or revenue-sharing arrangements. For instance, Google will no longer be able to condition Play Store licensing on the distribution of certain apps or link revenue-share payments to app placement.
As part of the order, Google must also share portions of its search index and user-interaction data with “qualified competitors” and offer search and search ad syndication services at standard rates. These changes are intended to prevent exclusionary behavior and allow rivals to deliver competitive search results while developing their own technologies.
Mehta has directed Google and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to “meet and confer” and submit a revised final judgment by September 10. The remedies, enforceable by a technical committee, will last six years and take effect 60 days after entry.
The decision comes a year after Mehta ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in online search. The DOJ, which initiated its suit in 2020, had pressed for stronger remedies, including forcing Google to divest Chrome or Android and ending its multibillion-dollar default search engine deals with Apple, Samsung, and others.
Apple’s stock rose in after-hours trading following the announcement, as its lucrative search agreement with Google remains intact. Google spent more than $26 billion in 2021 alone to secure default search placements—about $18 billion of which went to Apple, with whom Google shares 36% of Safari’s search ad revenue. The payments to Apple exceeded $20 billion in 2022. Judge Mehta noted during the trial that such default placements amounted to “extremely valuable real estate” that effectively shut out rivals.
Google has argued that the government’s proposals would harm innovation and user privacy. CEO Sundar Pichai said during the remedies hearing in April that forced data-sharing would amount to a “de facto divestiture” of Google Search.
Mehta’s remedies draw some parallels with Europe’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which requires Google to share click and query data with competitors, but his ruling is narrower and temporary. Unlike the DOJ’s sweeping demands—which included access to source code, ranking algorithms, and broader infrastructure—Mehta’s order stops short of dismantling Google’s intellectual property.
“This has inspired a big debate about whether Europeans with the Digital Markets Act have it right,” said William Kovacic, global competition law professor at George Washington University and former FTC commissioner. “That is, do you need descriptive rules, or do you rely on the technical case by case adjudication?”
Put another way: “Does the European experience tell us something about feasibility and implementation here. Does it tell us something about what Google can live with?” Kovacic added.
The case could also influence outcomes in Google’s other ongoing antitrust battles, including its ad-tech trial where a federal judge has already ruled that Google monopolized ad-tech markets. That remedies trial is set for late September.
“We’ve never had a circumstance in which the Department of Justice has had two largely parallel cases involving major elements of alleged misconduct against the same dominant firm with two parallel remedy processes going ahead,” Kovacic noted. He cautioned, however, that the saga is far from over: “There are many acts to this play to go” with Google’s appeal likely stretching the legal battle into 2027 or 2028.
