Judge Mehta Stops Short of Breakup in Google Monopoly Ruling; Chrome and Android Left Intact
A year after finding Google a monopolist, the U.S. judge declined to order breakups or direct oversight of Chrome and Android, prompting mixed reactions on whether the remedies sufficiently curb the company's power.
A U.S. judge largely avoided the most drastic remedies sought in the government’s landmark antitrust case against Google, declining to order a breakup of the company’s browser or to impose direct court oversight of its Android operating system.
In a decision delivered roughly a year after he concluded that Google was "a monopolist," Judge Amit Mehta rejected the Department of Justice’s request that Google be forced to spin off Chrome, the world’s most widely used web browser, and declined to place Android under court supervision to prevent the company from using its ecosystem to favor its search services and search-text-ad businesses. The judge did propose a set of remedies, but those measures stop short of the structural separations the government had argued were necessary to rein in the company’s market power.
The Department of Justice had urged a more aggressive approach during the remedies phase, telling the court that court oversight of Android would be needed to ensure Google does not leverage its operating system and related agreements to preserve advantages for its search products and advertising services. Those proposals were aimed at addressing the ways in which Google’s control of multiple layers of the internet ecosystem — from search and advertising to browsers and mobile operating systems — can reinforce its dominant position.
Judge Mehta’s decision marks the most significant antitrust confrontation with a major technology company since the government sued Microsoft in 1998, and it has been closely watched by regulators, competitors and investors. The ruling that Google is a monopolist in online search set a foundational finding for the remedies phase, but the choice not to require divestitures of Chrome or direct oversight of Android has led to divergent assessments of the ruling’s strength.
Some lawyers and industry analysts described the outcome as a relative reprieve for Google, noting that structural remedies such as divestiture are often seen as the most powerful tools for breaking up entrenched market positions. Others highlighted that remedies can take many forms and that nondestructive measures—such as changes to contracts, business practices or disclosures—can still meaningfully alter competitive dynamics over time.
The case has underscored wider policy debates about how to police dominant digital platforms and whether existing antitrust tools are adequate for markets shaped by network effects and platform ecosystems. The Justice Department’s proposals reflected concerns that, without intervention, Google could continue to deploy its control over browsers, mobile software and distribution channels to maintain advantages in search and advertising.
Legal experts say the practical effects of the remedies will depend on their detailed terms and on how courts and regulators enforce them going forward. The ruling will likely be scrutinized by public officials, competitors and civil society groups for its precedential impact on future antitrust enforcement involving technology firms.
The case against Google remains a reference point in ongoing discussions about competition policy for the internet economy, and the remedies decision is expected to shape both litigation strategies and regulatory approaches in the years ahead.
