FOLLOW US

In a ruling that could reshape the internet’s backbone, a D.C. federal judge on Friday released the Google Search Final Antitrust Mandates, a comprehensive package of remedies largely mirroring the Justice Department’s vision for how to crack open Google’s long-entrenched search monopoly.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta’s 95-page decision resolves months of wrangling between the government and Google over the wording, teeth and timeline of the injunction he first signaled in September. What emerged is a blueprint meant to pry open one of the tech industry’s strongest fortresses — one the judge described as a process where “the devil is in the details.”

The Battlefront Google Tried to Close

One of the fiercest disputes centered on generative artificial intelligence, with Google insisting that GenAI products fell outside the original liability theory. Judge Mehta waved that argument away.

“Adopting Google’s proposal would be self-defeating,” he wrote, warning that Google cannot be allowed to “replay its illegal conduct with its GenAI products.”

The ruling cements GenAI squarely within the injunction, underscoring that its fast-growing integration into search makes it impossible to silo.

Defining GenAI — a Compromise with Teeth

The judge adopted the government’s sweeping definition — any product using generative AI capabilities — while also accepting Google’s narrower qualifier requiring that the product’s principal function involve answering wide-ranging information-seeking prompts.

A One-Year Reset Rule to Break the Default Grip

Judge Mehta sided with the DOJ in capping Google’s search distribution agreements with browsers and wireless carriers at one year. The bright-line limit aims to prevent long-term deals from quietly locking rivals out of the search market.

“A hard-and-fast termination requirement after one year would best carry out the purpose of the injunctive relief,” he wrote, adding that the rule simplifies enforcement and avoids the web of exclusivity that maintained Google’s dominance for years.

Data Sharing: Licensed, But Not Locked Down

Google convinced the court that its search data should be shared under a license. But the door remains ajar: competitors can petition the forthcoming Technical Committee — or the judge — if they believe broader access or different terms are warranted.

Judge Mehta noted the importance of flexibility, citing potential joint ventures and as-yet-unimagined innovation.

Why Google Was Found Liable

Last year, the judge ruled that Google illegally maintained its search monopoly by funneling massive revenue-sharing payments to smartphone makers, carriers, and browser developers in exchange for default search placement — a tactic that left Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Yahoo perpetually trailing.

His September framework called for sweeping but carefully moderated data-sharing obligations and rejected the DOJ’s request to force Google to spin off the Chrome browser.

Six Years, One Technical Committee, and Endless Disputes

Mehta set a six-year term for the injunction — one year for implementation and five for enforcement — splitting the difference between the DOJ’s requested decade and Google’s proposed three-year limit.

The judge then instructed both sides to craft precise language for the order. What followed was a blizzard of disagreements that brought the parties back before him.

“I don’t want to be a referee,” he said in October. “That part of my job ought to be left behind.”
Friday’s ruling suggests he performed that role anyway — exhaustively.

Crucial Limits on Google’s Conditioning Power

A major flashpoint involved conditioning, the practice of tying one service’s distribution to another. Google argued it should only be barred from agreements that explicitly contain such terms. The DOJ wanted conditioning banned outright.

Judge Mehta sided with the government.

If Google insists it has no intention of such conditioning, he reasoned, “it should have no problem with a decree that expressly prohibits ‘any conditioning of the type.’”

Restrictions on Apple Device Access Points

The final judgment also blocks Google from conditioning consideration related to defaults across Apple ecosystems — from Safari to Siri, Spotlight, and even Privacy Mode. Each browser access point on each device must remain independent.

This ensures Apple users aren’t quietly steered into Google’s orbit through bundled arrangements.

Syndication: Rivals Should Build, Not Clone

The judge rejected Google’s argument that competitors should be required to mimic Google's search results pages. Syndication, he said, is meant to give rivals a quality boost, not turn them into “Google clones.”

Google Plans to Appeal

Google has already said it will appeal the ruling. Neither Google nor the DOJ responded to requests for comment late Friday, leaving the next chapter of the antitrust saga to unfold in the appellate courts.

The Legal Armies Behind the Fight

For the DOJ: David Dahlquist, Adam Severt, Veronica Onyema, Travis Chapman, Diana Aguilar, Sarah Bartels, Grant Fergusson, Kerrie Freeborn, Meagan Glynn, Richard Cameron Gower, Karl Herrmann, Ian Hoffman, John Hogan, Elizabeth Jensen, Ryan Karr, Claire Maddox, Michael McLellan, Keane Nowlan, Andrew Tisinger, Jennifer Wamsley, Catharine Wright.

For Google: John E. Schmidtlein, Benjamin M. Greenblum, Colette T. Connor, Kenneth C. Smurzynski, Graham W. Safty, Christopher Yeager, Gloria K. Maier, Aaron P. Maurer (Williams & Connolly LLP);
Michael S. Sommer, Franklin M. Rubinstein (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC);
Mark S. Popofsky, Matthew L. McGinnis (Ropes & Gray LLP).