Federal Judge Amit P. Mehta delivered a landmark ruling this week in the long-awaited Google antitrust case, but the decision reveals the complex challenges of regulating Big Tech in the AI age. While Google avoided the breakup many expected, the ruling introduces significant new oversight measures that could reshape how the search giant operates—though critics argue it doesn’t go far enough.
What Google Must Change
The court has ordered behavioral remedies that will fundamentally alter Google’s business practices. The company is now prohibited from entering or maintaining exclusive deals that tie the distribution of Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini to other apps or revenue arrangements. This means Google can no longer condition Play Store licensing on app distribution requirements or tie revenue-sharing payments to keeping certain apps.
Perhaps most significantly for competitors, Google must share certain search index and user-interaction data with “qualified competitors” and offer search and search ad syndication services at standard rates. This data-sharing requirement, overseen by a technical committee, represents a major concession that could help level the playing field in search.
What Google Avoided
The Department of Justice had pushed for much more severe penalties. The DOJ wanted to force Google to divest its Chrome browser and possibly Android, which had even prompted unsolicited acquisition bids from companies like Perplexity. The government also sought to end Google’s lucrative default search agreements with Apple, Samsung, and other partners—deals worth billions annually.
Google successfully argued that such measures would “stifle innovation, jeopardize user privacy, and undercut the company’s ability to invest in R&D.” CEO Sundar Pichai had testified that forced data-sharing would amount to a “de facto divestiture” of Google Search.
The AI Content Controversy: A Critical Gap
While the ruling addresses search competition, it notably fails to tackle one of the most pressing issues in today’s digital landscape: Google’s use of publisher content for its AI products. The court’s decision requires data sharing with competitors but provides no remedy for publishers who are being forced to allow Google to use their content for Generative AI products.
This omission drew sharp criticism from industry advocates. Danielle Coffey, President and CEO of the News/Media Alliance, expressed disappointment with the ruling: “Judge Mehta’s ruling did not address the ability of Google to further cement its market power through its AI offerings. Google is forcing content creators to give away their content to be used in its AI offerings in order to remain in Google Search.”
The News/Media Alliance argues this creates “a no-win scenario that will continue to harm publishers that invest in high-quality, journalistic and creative content.” Without the ability to opt out of Google’s AI training, publishers face an impossible choice: allow their content to be used to potentially compete against them, or lose visibility in search results.
Looking Ahead: A Long Road to Resolution
This ruling is far from final. Judge Mehta has ordered Google and the DOJ to “meet and confer” and submit a revised final judgment by September 10. The behavioral remedies, if implemented, will last six years and be overseen by a technical committee.
But the broader antitrust battle is just getting started. Google faces a separate antitrust trial related to its advertising technology business, where Judge Leonie Brinkema has already found that Google illegally monopolized ad-tech markets. A remedies trial for that case is scheduled for late September.
Legal experts expect a lengthy appeals process. William Kovacic, a global competition law professor at George Washington University, predicts the cases won’t be fully resolved “until late 2027 or early 2028.”
The Bigger Picture: Regulating AI-Era Monopolies
This ruling highlights the challenge of applying traditional antitrust remedies to companies that have evolved far beyond their original business models. While the data-sharing requirements may help search competitors, the failure to address AI content usage suggests courts are still grappling with how to regulate Big Tech in the generative AI era.
For publishers and content creators, the ruling represents a missed opportunity to establish important precedents about AI training data and content rights. As Google continues to integrate AI features more deeply into search results, potentially reducing traffic to original sources, the unresolved content usage issues may become even more critical.
The partial nature of this victory—significant for search competition but inadequate for content protection—reflects the complexity of modern tech regulation. While Google faces new constraints on its traditional monopoly behaviors, it retains significant freedom to leverage that monopoly in emerging AI markets.
As the legal battles continue and appeals wind their way through higher courts, one thing is clear: the intersection of antitrust law, AI development, and content rights will remain a defining issue for the tech industry in the years ahead.
About the Author
Paul Dughi is the CEO at StrongerContent.com with more than 30 years of experience as a journalist, content strategist, and Emmy-award winning writer/producer. Paul has earned more than 30 regional and national awards for journalistic excellence and earned credentials in SEO, content marketing, and AI optimization from Google. HubSpot, Moz, Facebook, LinkedIn, SEMRush, eMarketing Institute, Local Media Association, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), and Vanderbilt University.
Paul Dughi.com 