On 2 September 2025 Judge Amit Mehta set the remedies for Google’s search monopoly: it will not have to sell Chrome or Android, but it may not sign exclusive contracts and must share some data.
Federal judge Amit Mehta in Washington issued on 2 September 2025 the remedies for Google’s illegal monopoly in internet search, which he had found proven in August 2024 in the case brought by the US Department of Justice. The remedies were much milder than the prosecution had sought.
What he decided
The judge declined to force Google to sell its Chrome browser and, conditionally, the Android operating system, finding that the prosecution had overreached and that such a sale would be risky and hard to carry out. Google may keep paying Apple, phone makers and other partners to make its search engine the default, but it may not sign contracts that stop those partners from also offering rival search engines or artificial intelligence assistants.
It must also share with qualified competitors part of its search index and certain user-interaction data, though not advertising data. The remedies will apply for six years under the supervision of a technical committee.
The market reaction
Shares in Alphabet, Google’s parent, rose about 8% the next day, and Apple’s also gained, since it kept Google’s payments, worth around $20 billion a year. The judge took into account the rise of generative artificial intelligence, which was already competing with traditional search.
Why it matters
It is one of the most important antitrust decisions in decades in the United States and sets the tone for other cases against big tech, such as the one over Google’s own digital advertising business or those against Meta, Amazon and Apple. In Europe, the Digital Markets Act already imposes similar obligations on so-called gatekeepers. For businesses that depend on Google to win customers, the outcome points to somewhat more competition in search, without sudden changes.
Competition on the internet is increasingly decided in the courts, and slowly.
This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.
