In an antitrust ruling, a federal judge has ordered Google to overhaul parts of its search and advertising business, barring the company from using exclusive distribution deals and compelling new transparency in its ad auctions—while rejecting government calls to force a breakup.
In a 230-page remedies ruling issued Sept. 2, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta prohibited Google from maintaining exclusive contracts that make its services the default across devices and software, including Search, Chrome, Assistant, and Gemini. The court found those agreements—worth more than $26 billion in 2021—helped Google illegally preserve monopolies in general search and search text advertising. However, the judge declined the Justice Department’s most drastic proposals, refusing to order divestiture of Chrome or impose a contingent breakup of Android. Alphabet shares rose more than 6% in after-hours trading on relief that a forced sale was off the table.
The decision follows Mehta’s August 2024 liability ruling that “Google is a monopolist” and a three-week remedies hearing this spring featuring nearly 50 witnesses. Evidence showed Google paid major partners such as Apple, Samsung, and wireless carriers to keep Google as the default search engine on hundreds of millions of devices—defaults that rivals said reinforced a self-perpetuating advantage. The court also credited testimony that Google used “pricing knobs” in its auctions to quietly raise text-ad prices over time, with increases “barely perceptible” to advertisers.
Beyond ending exclusivity, the order imposes a suite of behavioral remedies aimed at jump-starting competition. Google must offer qualified competitors five-year licenses to syndicate ranked organic search results and features (such as Local, Maps, and Knowledge Panels), and provide limited access to search index and user-interaction data to help close the “scale gap.” Usage is capped and declines over the term to encourage rivals to build their own indexes. Google must also provide five-year access to search text ads syndication on terms no worse than those offered to other partners—though it will not be required to share advertisers’ proprietary ads data.
Addressing long-standing complaints about a “black box” ad market, Mehta ordered Google to publicly disclose material changes to its search ad auctions that could affect pricing, curbing the company’s ability to nudge up costs via unnoticed tweaks. A court-appointed Technical Committee will help define which auction changes warrant disclosure and oversee implementation of data-sharing and syndication obligations.
The judge rejected several government asks he said were untethered to the illegal conduct found, including mandated choice screens, restoration of legacy keyword options, broad advertiser data disclosures, publisher-content policy changes tied to AI training, and a ban on Google’s placement payments to partners. Cutting off those payments, he wrote, could “cripple” distributors and harm consumers.
Practically, partners will be free to take Google’s money for defaults without being locked out of deals with competitors. Apple, for example, could explore alternative search arrangements or its own product while maintaining existing Google revenue. The court also cautioned that Google cannot use its search dominance to control emerging generative-AI markets.
Both sides must submit a proposed final judgment by Sept. 10. Google has vowed to appeal the underlying liability finding, setting up a multi-year legal odyssey even as the company begins complying with the new rules. Separately, Google faces a remedies trial this month in a Virginia case over its ad-tech stack, underscoring the broader regulatory squeeze on its core advertising business.
Need Help?
If you have questions or concerns about any global guidelines, regulations and laws, don’t hesitate to reach out to BABL AI. Their Audit Experts can offer valuable insight, and ensure you’re informed and compliant.
