The US District Court for the District of Columbia issued, on September 2, 2025, a landmark ruling in the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust case against Google, imposing significant remedies to address the company’s monopoly in general search and search advertising – but stopping short of ordering a breakup of the tech giant.
Overview of remedies imposed
After finding the company in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act last year, Judge Amit Mehta opted for a measured approach to restore competition and deter future misconduct. Notably, the emergence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) as a nascent competitor threat to Google’s dominance played a key role in fashioning antitrust remedies.
At the heart of the court order is a ban on exclusive contracts and practices that previously ensured Google’s search engine was the default choice on nearly all desktops and mobile devices nationwide. By eliminating these agreements, the court aimed to lower barriers for rival search providers and nascent GenAI entrants to compete for user attention. And yet, the overall effect of the court’s order recognizes the innovations contributed by Google and the desire to not impede further innovations.
In addition to prohibiting exclusivity, the court prevented Google from tying its lucrative Play Store licenses and revenue-sharing agreements to the placement of its search tools, ensuring device manufacturers and partners can freely choose alternative providers.
Furthermore, Google must provide “Qualified Competitors” with access to certain search index and user-interaction data, helping rivals overcome the scale disadvantage created by Google’s past conduct. Google does not have to make ads data available. However, the court narrowed the scope of data to avoid overreach and protect proprietary information.
Google is also required to offer search and search text ads syndication services to competitors on terms consistent with its current commercial practices, enabling new entrants to deliver high-quality results and ads while building their own capabilities.
Lastly, Google is required to publicly disclose any material changes it makes to its ad auction processes. A Technical Committee will be established to assist in implementing and enforcing the judgment, with the remedies set to remain in effect for six years.
Remedies the court declined
The court considered, but ultimately rejected, several far-reaching remedies proposed by the plaintiffs. Notably, it declined to order Google to divest assets, such as Chrome or Android; ban all forms of payments to distribution partners; or mandate consumer-facing “choice screens” for search engine selection on devices. Proposals such as public education campaigns, broad advertiser data sharing, and anti-retaliation measures were also deemed unnecessary or outside the direct scope of Google’s violations.
Monopoly maintained through exclusive deals
The case, brought by the DOJ and multiple states, centered on allegations that Google used exclusive distribution agreements to unlawfully sustain its dominance in the sector. The court found that for over a decade, Google secured its position as the default search engine on browsers, smartphones, and other devices by entering into exclusive distribution agreements with device manufacturers, wireless carriers, and browser developers.
Industry implications
While Google has already signaled it will appeal the court’s decision, this marks one of the most significant antitrust interventions in the tech sector in decades, with potential ripple effects for how digital markets are regulated and how dominant platforms interact with competitors in both search and AI. Equally, DOJ has indicated that it will evaluate an appeal on the remedies order. A practical effect of the appeals is that impact at industry or consumer levels will not be immediate but rather, possibly, in several years.
For more information, please contact the authors.