Google’s antitrust case has finally reached its highly anticipated conclusion — and hardly anyone seems satisfied with the result. While the adtech giant must end some of its licensing agreements and share data with competitors under the most recent federal ruling, it maintains control over its eponymous search engine, Chrome browser and Android operating system. To some, Google appears to have been largely let off the hook, but the U.S. Department of Justice argues that it scored a major win in the fight against monopolies in search advertising.
What to Know About Google’s Antitrust Ruling
In his antitrust verdict, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled that Google must cease exclusive agreements with distributors that favor its products and, more crucially, share some of its search and user data with “Qualified Competitors.” However, it doesn’t have to sell its Chrome browser or Android operating system, keeping its business intact.
Google is also disappointed in the decision, with employees arguing that it never monopolized an industry that has been transformed by artificial intelligence. Indeed, generative AI has emerged as an undeniable force driving a new era in search, raising questions around whether the antitrust verdict preserves Google’s search supremacy, promotes healthy competition or paves the way for an AI-powered competitor to take Google’s place.
Why Was the Government Suing Google in the First Place?
In 2020, the Justice Department and attorneys general from 11 states submitted a complaint against Google, accusing the company of “unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices.”
Among these practices are the company’s “exclusionary agreements” with partners like Apple, Samsung and Mozilla, which make its search engine the default option on devices and browsers while blocking competitors from securing similar deals. According to the complaint, not only did these methods direct the majority of search queries through Google’s products, but they also pressured advertisers to pay for online ads on Google’s search engine results page for greater visibility. In short, Google had reams of query data and advertising revenue under its sole control.
U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta would go on to rule in favor of the complainants in a 2024 decision, agreeing that Google established a monopoly. The verdict confirmed Google’s liability and set the stage for the 2025 trial to determine any steps Google would need to take to remedy the situation.
What Exactly Does the Decision Say?
In his ruling, Mehta noted that the emergence of generative AI “changed the course of this case.” When the lawsuit first began in 2020, OpenAI had only just released its GPT-3 model, which became the foundation for later models behind its wildly popular ChatGPT tool. At the time, competitors like Anthropic and Perplexity didn’t even exist yet. Now, chatbots are increasingly taking on the role of the “default general search engine,” or GSE, posing a viable threat to Google’s dominance.
“Today, tens of millions of people use GenAI chatbots, like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude, to gather information that they previously sought through internet search,” Mehta wrote. “These GenAI chatbots are not yet close to replacing GSEs, but the industry expects that developers will continue to add features to GenAI products to perform more like GSEs.”
Generative AI’s encroachment on the search landscape brings into question Google’s status as a monopoly. As a result, here are some of the key actions Google does not have to perform under the ruling:
- Sell the Chrome browser and Android operating system.
- Stop payments to distributors for favoring its search engine, browser or generative AI products.
- Give advertisers access to “granular, query-level data.”
- Offer users “choice screens” on its products.
- Provide website publishers with more options for how it can use their content.
While Mehta may have decided to avoid slapping Google with more severe penalties, he does require the company to take several remedial steps:
- Refrain from entering exclusive agreements with partners regarding the “distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app.”
- Grant “Qualified Competitors” access to “certain search index and user-interaction data.”
- Provide “search and search text ads syndication services” to “Qualified Competitors.”
- Publicly share any “material changes it makes to its ad auctions.”
- Submit to the supervision of a “Technical Committee” and establish an “internal compliance officer.”
Sharing data is the penalty that’s likely to rankle Google the most, considering the ambiguity around the term “Qualified Competitors.” Whether it refers only to traditional players like Apple and Microsoft or includes AI upstarts like OpenAI and Perplexity isn’t entirely clear. This complicates matters for Google, as it strives to reassert its dominance in a search industry that’s actively being reshaped by AI.
What Does This Mean for Google?
Avoiding a complete breakup of its business is a big victory for Google, and investors have responded accordingly: The same day the antitrust verdict was delivered, shares of Alphabet (Google’s parent company) shot up by 8 percent. In addition, Google can still pay companies to make its search engine the default option on devices considered to be “key search access points,” according to Mehta. This means Google’s search engine will likely stay front and center for the time being.
That said, sharing search and user data presents a slippery slope for Google. AI companies rely on data to train large language models that fuel chatbots, virtual assistants and AI agents, among other products. Even without Google’s data, players like OpenAI, Anthropic and Perplexity have already made sizable enough gains in the search industry to impact the outcome of this antitrust case. If they are viewed as “Qualified Competitors,” they could use this data to build even more advanced AI models and products that outperform Google’s.
Will AI Overviews Still Be a Thing?
Given the rise of AI, it doesn’t seem like Google has a choice but to keep its AI overviews, which essentially summarize search results at the top of the page. According to a 2025 survey by Orbital Media Studios, 72 percent of users use Google’s AI overviews. It is one of the most popular features Google has ever launched, according to case documents.
At the same time, 62 percent of users visit chatbots daily, and 49 percent believe AI will replace search engines. Indeed, chatbots and AI search engines are more popular than ever, with ChatGPT reaching 700 million active users per week in August and Perplexity handling 780 million search queries in May.
With search transitioning to an AI-first approach, Google is preparing to expand its AI offerings well beyond AI overviews. The company plans to integrate Gemini into its Chrome browser, essentially converting Gemini into a personal assistant that would fill the role of AI overviews and then some. The question is whether this is enough for Google to remain competitive with its AI counterparts.
What Does This Mean for Google’s Competitors?
Competitors are probably disappointed that Mehta didn’t require Google to sell Chrome, particularly OpenAI and Perplexity. Google’s retention of its search engine, browser and Android OS — and its ability to still pay distributors for favoring these products — reaffirms it as a formidable foe that all companies in the search space must deal with in some way. Plus, those who aren’t “Qualified Competitors” may miss out on Google’s data.
But there’s a silver lining for Google’s rivals as well. Apple will continue to receive $20 billion per year for making Google the default search engine on Safari. And if they’re classified as “Qualified Competitors,” OpenAI and Perplexity could get access to valuable search and user data, which they could then use to fine-tune their LLMs and improve other products like their AI browsers, Operator and Comet. In fact, Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas has confessed that one of Comet’s main purposes is to collect more user data, so tapping into Google’s stash would fast-track these efforts.
It’s this growing threat of generative AI that pushed Mehta to rein in Google’s search empire in this way — encouraging competition without weakening the company so much that a traditional rival or AI startup would simply take its place. Whether he succeeded in striking the right balance remains to be seen as the next chapter in Google’s antitrust saga begins.
What’s Next Following the Ruling?
Google has already hinted that it will appeal Mehta’s decision, which is a years-long process that could eventually bring the case to the Supreme Court. If Google chooses this route, the antitrust ruling won’t have any meaningful impact until the company’s appeal is fully resolved.
But Google will want to resist waging its legal battle for too long, as Microsoft knows all too well. Back in the late 1990s, Microsoft had Apple cornered and didn’t need to worry about fledgling startup Google. However, the company’s refusal to compromise dragged out its federal antitrust lawsuit and divided its energies, opening the door for Apple and Google to develop into the tech titans of today.
At a White House dinner, Google CEO Sundar Pichai expressed more positive sentiments about the case with President Donald Trump, so an appeal isn’t a sure thing. After all, duking it out with the federal government while dealing with European fines and additional lawsuits could wear Google down and give OpenAI, Perplexity and other competitors the breathing room to finally break Google’s grip on the search industry for good.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the U.S. government sue Google?
In 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice and 11 state attorneys general filed a complaint against Google, accusing the company of establishing a monopoly in the search and adtech industries. The complainants note Google’s exclusive agreements with partners like Apple that make its search engine the default option on mobile devices and browsers while preventing competitors from doing the same, resulting in an unfair playing field.
What did the judge decide in the Google ruling?
U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled that Google must end exclusive agreements with distributors, provide greater transparency around its ad auctions process and share some of its search and user-interaction data with “Qualified Competitors.” That said, the company doesn’t have to stop payments to distributors, share more “granular, query-level data” or sell its Chrome browser and Android operating system.
How does generative AI factor into the Google case?
Judge Amit P. Mehta acknowledged that generative AI “changed the course of this case,” with AI startups like OpenAI, Anthropic and Perplexity presenting increased competition in the search industry. These developments likely spared Google from suffering the most severe penalties, including the breakup of its business.
