Judge Finalizes Antitrust Remedies in Google Case

A U.S. district judge added further detail on Friday to the remedial measures stemming from Google’s antitrust case, finalizing the penalties the company faces after its loss last year.

In mid‑2024, a federal jury concluded that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in the core market of internet search. In September, Judge Amit Mehta rejected the Department of Justice’s most aggressive proposals—including a forced divestiture of the Chrome browser—but did order the tech giant to loosen its grip on search‑related data.

Mehta’s latest filing fleshes out those requirements. “The devil is in the details,” the judge wrote, emphasizing that the nuances of antitrust remedies can be as consequential as the headline rulings.

One key provision caps the duration of any exclusive agreements like the current default‑search deal with Apple. Google pays billions annually to have its search engine pre‑installed on Safari devices. Under the new order, such contracts must terminate no later than one year after they are signed.

The judge also incorporated generative AI (GenAI) products into the remediation framework. Any application, service, feature, tool, functionality, or product that leverages large language models must comply with the data‑sharing mandates.

To oversee compliance, Mehta mandated the formation of a technical committee tasked with determining which competitors receive access to Google’s search interaction data. Committee members must possess expertise in software engineering, information retrieval, artificial intelligence, economics, behavioral science, and data‑privacy/security. The ruling explicitly bars anyone with a conflict of interest—including former Google employees or staff of its rivals—from serving on the panel for six months before or one year after their tenure.

The committee will be granted access to Google’s source code and algorithms under a strict confidentiality agreement. While Google is required to share raw search‑interaction data used to train its ranking and AI systems, the proprietary algorithms themselves remain protected.

Judge Mehta previously noted that the data sets earmarked for sharing represent only a small fraction of Google’s overall traffic, yet they underpin the models that give the company a competitive edge. By opening this data to rivals, the court aims to level the playing field without dismantling Google’s core infrastructure.

In August 2024, the court ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, confirming a monopoly in both search and related advertising. The antitrust trial, which began in September 2023, has now moved from headline findings to the granular implementation of corrective measures.

Industry analysts predict that the mandated data sharing could accelerate the development of competing AI‑driven search engines, narrowing Google’s dominance in both advertising revenue and user engagement. At the same time, the limitation on default‑search contracts with Apple may encourage device manufacturers to explore alternative search partnerships, potentially reshaping the ecosystem of mobile and desktop browsers.

Google has not yet commented on the latest ruling and has signaled its intention to appeal the monopoly determination. The case will likely continue to influence regulatory strategies around digital platforms, especially as AI capabilities become a central battleground for market share.

Judge Mehta’s detailed order underscores a broader trend: antitrust enforcement is shifting from broad structural remedies to precise, data‑centric interventions designed to foster competition without triggering wholesale market disruption.