Google Monopoly Case and Implications of Remedial Measures
Amit Mehta, Judge, Ruling : Google is a monopoly in the search antitrust case, September 2023. Two years ago.
The ruling ordered remedies not a split. Remedies are behavioural and specific, not STRUCTURAL.
Amit Mehta recommended other remedies, they are :
Google is largely banned from entering into exclusive default search engine agreements with browser developers like Apple and Mozilla. Order imposed restrictions on monopolistic consolidation.
It must make it easier for users to switch their default search engine.
It must provide more transparency and access to its ad tech tools for rivals.
In the separate adtech Anti-trust case the trial began on September 9, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, with Judge Leonie Brinkema presiding. On April 17, 2025, Judge Brinkema ruled that Google is liable for "willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power". However, She concluded that a separate claim that Google has monopoly in advertiser ad network was not proven.
Critically, the judge Amit Mehta did not order a structural split of the company (e.g., separating/divesting Chrome or/and Android from Google. Going by the standout features of the orders one finds overlap not convergence between European tech regulation framework and United States anti-trust judgment.
Monopoly points towards a singular solution, we have a monopoly so SPLIT. Other remedies possible? Are they effective? The solutions depend on which sector and what field?
Deposing before the court Satya Nadella, CEO Microsoft, highlighted how the control over vast resources of the internet lies with Google. The fate of browsers and search engines depends on this resource. Google has almost exclusive control over it. Other players have a minor market share and competitors do not have access to this resource in this sector. The search monopoly and integration of advertisement with technology provides Google not with an edge but dominance. The ad tech is vertically and horizontally integrated with/in the google products and systems. So some sought that its browser Chrome or/and Android should be split from Google to allow competitors a chance, fair competition and a leveled playing field.
Other players pointed out how Google safeguards its monopoly via being an exclusive and default browser and search engines through payments across mobile operating systems, especially Apple. Also Samsung. Google paid 26 billion $( for a single year) for maintaining a privileged position to mobile manufacturing companies.
Verdict was delivered on September, 2025. Google is not parting with chrome or/and Android. Google will partly share its internal search related resources with its competitors.
US vs Microsoft Judgement in 1997 was the precedent where a split was ordered. Microsoft appealed and the split verdict was overturned. A settlement was reached in 2001 that imposed restrictions on Microsoft. The United States vs Google LLC, 2023 order is also about restrictions and how google operates vis-a-vis its competitors. Google must share partly search index and user interaction data with competitors.
Share data with qualified competitors, it is unclear whether that competitors will include Baidu, Yandex, Tor and others? Also with X( Twitter), DeepSeek, Claude, Perplexity and others that are more invested in AI.
The cases belonged largely to the same sector. No split order for google. BTW, how effective has been the split judgement in the case with Microsoft? Judgment and subsequent settlement in US vs Microsoft paved or fueled the success of Google?
Google submitted in this case that its success is premised on developing a superior product, not due to its monopolistic and exclusive control over the resources available on the internet.
Experts and analysts in this case are divided about the remedies ordered with the judgment. Some, especially those who fear big tech monopoly or are aligned to parties in this case see this as a big tech victory. Or are the remedial measures adequate and sufficient, even tougher?
Can and should an emerging and dynamic field like technology be regulated through legal judgments?
How is the landscape and architect of this field holding? Same players dominating or there is viable competition. Barriers to entry and expansion are narrowing or expanding?
In light of these considerations and the fact that Artificial Intelligence is shaping up differently, Amit Mehta opted for remedies other than a split?
What
measures are going to benefit its end users and how do we safeguard
them? What about other stakeholders -- people. In the case of the
internet, people are both the creators and consumers of this resource.
Artificial intelligence appears as the most important component of technological evolution at the moment. Development within artificial intelligence is a function of tapping, organising and exploiting the vast resources of the internet? Is Google holding back its AI development with its eyes on this case? Part sharing of its 'internal resources' that organises and reorganises the internet resource with rivals will diversify the technological landscape, infuse innovation and emergence of viable alternatives in future?
The order may apply to only US based(domestic) companies and not to the international and offshore big tech. And Google can forge tech partnership with Samsung, Reliance Jio, Revolut and Meta AI in spite of this judgment?
The remedies ordered has addressed the issues that a monopoly judgement has raised?
The adtech case is due to move into the remedy phase. The order will determine what corrective steps Google has to take. It may include divesting part of its ad tech business.
Internet resources are not exclusively or largely created by any technological company. It largely belongs to people who created it with their participation and are also its end users.
Comments