Google won’t be split up over its search business, but a federal judge has tentatively ordered sweeping behavioral changes designed to curb anticompetitive practices and open the market to rivals.
In a proposed remedy released by U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta, Google would be barred from striking or maintaining exclusive deals that tie the distribution of Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini to other apps or revenue arrangements. In practical terms, that means no conditioning Play Store licensing on bundling specific apps, and no paying partners to keep certain apps or defaults in place.
Key measures in the tentative order:
– No exclusive distribution or default-placement deals that lock in Search, Chrome, Assistant, or Gemini through app bundles or revenue-share incentives.
– Mandatory data access: Google must share defined portions of its search index and user-interaction data with qualified competitors to prevent exclusionary tactics.
– Fair access to syndication: Google must offer search and search ad syndication services to competitors at standardized, non-discriminatory rates so they can deliver quality results while building their own tech.
– Oversight and duration: A technical committee will monitor compliance; the order would last six years and take effect 60 days after final entry.
This is not yet final. Judge Mehta directed Google and the Department of Justice to meet, confer, and submit a revised final judgment by September 10 that aligns with his opinion. The remedies follow his earlier ruling that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in online search.
What the DOJ wanted—and didn’t get (for now)
The Justice Department sought much stronger penalties, including potential divestitures such as spinning off the Chrome browser and even parts of Android, and an end to default-search agreements with Apple, Samsung, and other partners. Those default placements, the court emphasized during trial, are tremendously valuable because most users stick with whatever is set out of the box—effectively walling off rivals.
Why default deals matter—and the Apple factor
Google has long paid billions to be the default search engine across devices and browsers. In 2021 alone, the company spent more than $26 billion to secure default placements, with an estimated $18 billion flowing to Apple. Under that arrangement, Google reportedly shares 36% of its Safari search ad revenue with Apple. In 2022, payments to Apple topped $20 billion. News that the deal may continue—at least for now—boosted Apple’s stock after hours.
Data sharing, but not a handover of the crown jewels
The DOJ had pushed for broad, privacy-protected access to Google’s search index, user-side data, synthetic queries, and ads data to help competitors achieve parity. Google, which has held around 90% of the traditional search market for a decade, argued such mandates would chill innovation, jeopardize user privacy, and amount to a “de facto divestiture” of its search business.
Judge Mehta signaled a middle path. He indicated he would look to Europe’s Digital Markets Act for guidance—the DMA requires sharing certain click and query data—yet his remedy is narrower, temporary, and far less invasive than the DOJ’s sweeping requests. Notably, it does not reach source code, full ranking algorithms, or broader infrastructure that Google contends would give away its intellectual property.
What comes next
– Revised final judgment due September 10 after talks between Google and the DOJ.
– If entered, the order triggers a 60-day countdown before enforcement begins.
– A technical committee will oversee compliance throughout the six-year term.
The wider battlefield: Google’s ad-tech case
Judge Mehta’s decision could influence Google’s separate showdown over advertising technology. In April 2025, a federal court found Google illegally monopolized parts of the ad-tech market. A remedies trial is scheduled for late September and will examine potential divestitures and other structural measures. It’s rare for the DOJ to run two major antitrust remedies in parallel against the same dominant firm, and outcomes in one case could shape expectations in the other.
Expect a long road of appeals
Even with remedies outlined, the litigation is far from over. Google is expected to appeal, and the dispute could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. A final resolution may not arrive until late 2027 or early 2028.
Bottom line
Google avoided a breakup, but faces strict limits on default deals and must open parts of its search ecosystem to competitors under standardized terms. The ruling aims to reduce lock-in, make defaults less determinative, and give rival search providers a fairer shot—without requiring Google to surrender its core technology. As negotiations over the final judgment proceed and the ad-tech case advances, the next year will shape how far U.S. courts go in remaking the search giant’s business. This story is developing.
