Judge Orders Shake-Up of Google Search in Antitrust Ruling, Keeps Chrome Intact

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered changes to Google’s search business in an effort to curb what he found to be the corrosive power of an illegal monopoly, while declining to impose a breakup of the company or restraints on its Chrome browser.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s 226-page decision in Washington, D.C., carved out remedies aimed at reducing Google’s dominance over the way users reach online information, but it stopped short of some of the more sweeping measures sought by the Justice Department in the nearly five-year-old antitrust case.

Mehta wrote that the court was asked “to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future,” noting the difficulty of crafting remedies in a market being reshaped by rapid innovation. The judge cited advances in artificial intelligence and the emergence of conversational “answer engines,” such as ChatGPT and Perplexity, as factors that influenced his approach to relief. Those technologies have begun to challenge Google’s long-standing role as the internet’s primary gateway.

The government, which brought the case during the Trump administration and continued it under President Joe Biden, had sought structural remedies and broader restrictions. Mehta rejected requests to break up the company and declined to impose certain other restraints, instead ordering specific changes intended to limit Google’s ability to lock up default access points to search services.

Legal and technology analysts said the ruling could reverberate across the digital economy as companies race to integrate generative AI into search and information services. The decision acknowledges the changing competitive landscape while focusing on commercial arrangements and conduct that the court found contributed to Google’s monopoly power.

The Justice Department argued that Google used contracts and agreements to secure preferential placement as the default search provider on devices and platforms, limiting rivals’ ability to compete. The case has centered on whether those business arrangements unlawfully maintained Google’s dominance in general search and search advertising.

Mehta’s decision weighs existing contractual practices against the potential for new competitors and products driven by AI to divert user attention away from traditional search. The ruling represents a judicial attempt to impose remedies that are effective in the current and foreseeable market without foreclosing the chance that AI-driven competitors could alter industry dynamics.

Technology companies have been experimenting with generative and conversational AI to present answers directly to users, reducing clicks to traditional search results. Those developments have prompted regulators and courts to reassess long-established assumptions about how consumers find information online and how market power is exercised.

Google has defended its practices as procompetitive, arguing that its search services are the result of superior products and that default placements and partnerships are commonplace in tech markets. The company is expected to evaluate the decision and consider its legal options, including potential appeals.

The ruling adds to a wave of antitrust scrutiny facing major technology firms in the United States and abroad. It underscores the tension between rapid technological change and legal remedies based on market structures and past conduct. For regulators and courts, the challenge remains to fashion interventions that protect competition without stifling innovation that could itself displace dominant firms.

The Justice Department and Google did not immediately comment on how the decision would affect specific contracts or the timeline for implementing the court’s directives. The long-running case will likely prompt additional filings over the narrow contours of the remedies and how they should be enforced as AI-driven services continue to evolve.

Mehta’s opinion reflects an effort to balance present harms the government identified with uncertainty about the future trajectory of search and information services. As companies deploy new AI capabilities to deliver direct answers and personalized results, courts and regulators will continue to confront the question of how to apply antitrust law in a rapidly changing technological environment.