top of page
Search

Google saved by AI? Judge Mehta’s Search Ruling


Google saved by AI? On September 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amit announced that Google will not have to sell Chrome and can keep Android. This lawsuit, initiated by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in October 2020 against Google LLC, was concluded a few days ago. The suit alleges that Google had broken the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolising the search engine and search advertising markets on Android and Apple devices. The result was highly anticipated, as Google could have been brought down, forced to sell its search engine Chrome, worth billions of dollars and shaken the biggest in the industry, as Apple could have lost their $26 billion annual contract with Google. In this article, we will discuss the case and examine the significance of this important news in the tech world.

 

1) Context: How we got here


On October 20th 2020, the DOJ alleged Google illegally obtained a search monopoly through a multibillion-dollar default search with Apple, Android OEMs, and browsers. (Having a monopoly is not illegal; it becomes unlawful when a company uses exclusionary tactics to keep current or potential rivals from entering or growing in the market.)


In August 2024, Judge Mehta found Google liable for maintaining a monopoly, citing, among other evidence, Google’s approximately $26 billion annual default payments as proof of its distribution power. In 2025, the case moved to remedies: the government floated structural options (e.g., divesting Chrome/Android), while Google argued for narrower conduct remedies. The September order by Judge Metha rejects a breakup and focuses on contract restraints and targeted access measures.

 

2) The Court’s decision


The court ruled that Google does not require divestitures of Chrome or Android, calling forced sales unwarranted in this case.

The main decisions were the following:


  • Exclusivity bans + shorter terms: Google is barred from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app.

  • Data/index access (and syndication): Google must make certain search-index and user-interaction data available to qualified competitors and offer search and search-text-ad syndication on commercial terms. The goal is to help rivals improve relevance and monetise as they build.

  • Default payments remain (non-exclusive): Google may keep paying Apple/Mozilla, etc. (this is why the Apple stock reacted positively with the trial, as Google will probably continue to pay $26 billion each year), for default status, but without exclusivity and without long lock-ins.


3) Reasoning Behind the Ruling


Now the question is, why did the court land on this decision? One could argue that Google has had a monopoly for more than a decade and has used illegal methods to keep this position. The element that changed everything is AI. The judge Mehta explicitly recognised generative AI (e.g., OpenAI, Perplexity) as a fast-moving competitive force changing how people find information. This little part in the 200-page report changes everything. As the judge explains, the situation has changed since the beginning of the lawsuit, with the arrival of AI. Google has new rivals emerging and is no longer alone.


Furthermore, the judge highlighted his wish to target conduct, not structure. The order targets choke points such as exclusive defaults, long revenue share, and bundling rather than ordering divestiture, which the court viewed as risky or misfit for the violation.


4) Consequences — for Google


Now that we have understood the reasons behind the decision, let’s analyse the consequences for the company.

Firstly, their distribution power is largely intact. Indeed, losing exclusivity hurts, but Google can still pay an annualised, non-exclusive fee for Safari/Firefox, which likely gets pricier, yet still preserves a formidable moat versus smaller rivals.  


Secondly, Google now must stand up privacy-safe data access (index + interaction signals) and syndication with reasonable quality/latency.


The consequences for Google are minimal; Google just won its lawsuit.  The stock market was relieved by this news, and the stock jumped by ~7–9% and Apple gained ~3% on the ruling that preserves default payments under new limit


(Google Finance, 2025)
(Google Finance, 2025)

5) Consequences — for rivals & the GSE landscape


In this lawsuit, the small wins for the rivals are the data shared by Google, lowering technical barriers (in theory). Access to parts of Google’s index/data plus syndication can reduce cold-start problems for DuckDuckGo, Perplexity, and hybrid AI-search tools, improving answer quality and giving a near-term revenue path. However, computing distribution costs remain steep, and the network effect remains predominant, hampering any rival from competing.


This idea is shared by rivals as DuckDuckGo and advocates derided the package as a “slap on the wrist,” arguing that brand inertia and paid defaults keep Google entrenched.


The real winners are Google partners, such as Apple or Mozilla, which can continue to receive billions every year. This situation is even better as exclusivity is barred, but default payments are still allowed. Apple is particularly pleased as it can extract higher revenue shares, layer in its own/third-party AI solutions, and still receive Google’s checks.

 

 

Conclusion


On Sept. 2, 2025, Judge Amit Mehta delivered a verdict with billions on the line and ripples far beyond search. Google dodged the guillotine; it is not forced to sell Chrome or Android, but it lost its contractual armour: exclusivity is out, and slices of its index and user-interaction data must be opened to qualified rivals. This favourable result for Google is not a gift or kindness; a new huge rival is coming: AI. The message is clear: win on product, not on lock-ups, in a market where generative AI is fast becoming the new gateway to information. The war is now declared: AI vs Google, may the best win.

 

 

References


 

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page