What Google can — and cannot do — after US court ruling: What happens next
US District judge addresses Google’s monopolistic practices in a landmark ruling
In a landmark antitrust ruling on September 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta addressed Google’s monopolistic practices in the online search market, following a 2024 decision that found Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
The ruling, one of the most significant antitrust cases since the Microsoft case in the 1990s, rejected the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) push to force Google to divest its Chrome browser but imposed other remedies to curb its dominance.
This explainer examines the implications for end users, innovation, competitors, changes for Google, and the ruling’s broader significance.
Implications for end users
The ruling bars Google from entering exclusive contracts that make its search engine the default on devices and browsers, such as its multi-billion-dollar deal with Apple to be the default on Safari.
What this means: This could give users more choice by allowing device makers to preload alternative search engines like, Opera, Bing or DuckDuckGo without restrictive agreements.
However, Google can still pay for default placement, meaning consumer habits — favouring Google’s search due to familiarity — may not shift dramatically.
Privacy
Industry observers say users could benefit from enhanced privacy options, as the ruling requires Google to allow different default search engines in Chrome’s privacy mode.
However, Google’s concerns about data-sharing mandates raise potential privacy risks if competitors mishandle shared user data.
Implications for innovation
By requiring Google to share some search index and user-interaction data with “qualified competitors,” the ruling aims to foster innovation in search and AI.
Access to this data could enable smaller players, like Perplexity or DuckDuckGo, to build competitive search engines or AI models, potentially spurring advancements in generative AI and search technology.
| What Google Can Do | What Google Cannot Do |
|---|---|
| Retain Ownership of Chrome and Android: Google is not required to divest its Chrome browser or Android operating system, as the court rejected the DOJ’s request for structural remedies, citing insufficient evidence that these assets directly contributed to the illegal search monopoly. | Enter Exclusive Contracts: Google is barred from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts that tie the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini AI to other apps or revenue-sharing arrangements. This includes agreements that make Google Search the default on devices or browsers. |
| Continue Payments for Non-Exclusive Placement: Google can continue to pay device manufacturers (e.g., Apple, Samsung) and browser developers (e.g., Mozilla) for preloading or placing Google Search, Chrome, or generative AI products, as long as these deals are not exclusive and are limited to one-year terms. | Condition Licensing or Revenue Sharing: Google cannot condition the licensing of its Play Store or other Google apps on the distribution or preloading of other Google services. It also cannot tie revenue-sharing payments from one Google app to the placement of another app. |
| Operate in AI and Search Markets: Google can continue to develop and compete in AI (e.g., Gemini) and search markets without structural restrictions, as the court noted the competitive threat posed by generative AI and chose not to impose remedies that could hinder Google’s innovation. | Withhold Certain Search Data: Google must share specific search index data and user interaction data (not advertising data) with qualified competitors on ordinary commercial terms, as determined by the court, to foster competition. A technical oversight committee will monitor compliance for six years. |
| Appeal the Ruling: Google has stated its intent to appeal both the remedies and the August 2024 liability ruling that found it violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining an illegal monopoly in search and search advertising markets. | Engage in Anticompetitive Default Agreements: Google is prohibited from leveraging its default agreements with partners (e.g., Apple’s Safari browser, Samsung devices) in ways that foreclose competitors’ access to distribution channels, as these were deemed anticompetitive. |
| Maintain Current Business Structure: Google can keep its integrated business model, including its search engine, Chrome, Android, and AI products, without forced divestitures, as the court found divestiture to be a “poor fit” for the case. | Ignore Oversight: Google must comply with a court-established technical oversight committee to ensure adherence to the remedies, effective 60 days after the final judgment, for a period of six years. |
Effects of forced data sharing
However, Google argued that forced data sharing could stifle its own innovation by giving competitors an “unfair handout.”
Critics, including former US Fair Trade Commission (FTC) technologist Neil Chilson, suggest the remedies may not significantly benefit larger AI competitors like OpenAI, but smaller firms could gain a foothold, potentially diversifying the market.
Implications for competitors
The decision is a mixed bag for Google’s rivals.
The DOJ’s failure to secure Chrome’s divestiture disappointed competitors like Perplexity, which offered $34.5 billion to acquire it, and Ecosia, which advocated for Chrome’s stewardship for climate action.
The ban on exclusive deals and data-sharing requirements could level the playing field, allowing competitors to secure distribution channels previously dominated by Google’s contracts.
However, DuckDuckGo’s CEO Gabriel Weinberg noted that the remedies don’t go far enough, as Google’s market dominance (around 89.5% globally in July 2025) may still suppress competition, particularly in AI-driven search.
What Google can and cannot do
Google avoids a breakup, retaining Chrome and Android, but must end exclusive distribution agreements and share limited search data with rivals. It’s also prohibited from bundling apps like Google Search or Gemini with access to the Google Play Store.
These changes could reduce Google’s control over search distribution but allow it to maintain its ecosystem’s integrity. Google plans to appeal, arguing the remedies harm user privacy and US tech leadership, especially in AI competition with China.
Highlights
The ruling symbolises a pivotal moment in regulating Big Tech, echoing the Microsoft case but reflecting a cautious approach to avoid overreach.
Judge Mehta’s decision to craft remedies with “humility” acknowledges the complexity of predicting tech market dynamics, particularly with AI’s rise.
It highlights the tension between curbing monopolies and preserving innovation, as well as the government’s renewed vigor in antitrust enforcement under both Biden and Trump administrations.
The case sets a precedent for ongoing lawsuits against Meta, Amazon, and Apple, signaling that tech giants face increasing scrutiny globally.
Takeaways
While the ruling promotes competition by dismantling some barriers, its limited scope may not fully disrupt Google’s dominance, leaving a complex legacy for users, innovators, and competitors.
Sign up for the Daily Briefing
Get the latest news and updates straight to your inbox
