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.