The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, presided over by Judge Amit Mehta, issued a ruling in 2024 in the proceedings United States v. Google and State of Colorado v. Google (consolidated during the pretrial phase), stating:
“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”
With this ruling, the court found that Google had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully maintaining its monopoly in the market for general search services and advertising through exclusive agreements with device manufacturers, browser developers, and wireless carriers, which agreements “froze” the search ecosystem and harmed competition.
As we noted in our coverage last month, as part of the proposed remedies, the U.S. Department of Justice suggested that Google be required to divest its Chrome browser. In response, Perplexity AI submitted a $34.5 billion offer to acquire Chrome, even though Google has not yet confirmed any intention to sell. This offer is a direct consequence of the 2024 ruling and the broader push to restore competition in the search engine market.
More than a year after the original ruling, Judge Amit Mehta issued a Memorandum Opinion on September 2, 2025, noting that much has changed in the meantime, which opinion has far-reaching consequences for the technology sector, competitors, and legal practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic. While Google remains dominant in the relevant product markets and no new competitors have entered, the judge acknowledged this but added that:
“…artificial intelligence technologies, particularly generative AI (“GenAI”), may yet prove to be game changers.”
And while it may seem that Google is heading toward an antitrust victory in the United States, the European Commission announced this week a €2.95 billion fine, the second-largest antitrust penalty in EU history for favoring its own advertising services in violation of EU competition rules. The decision sparked a strong reaction from U.S. President Donald Trump, who stated:
“I will be forced to start a Section 301 proceeding to nullify the unfair penalties being charged to these Taxpaying American Companies.”
One thing is certain: GenAI has been a transformative force since 2020, when the proceedings against Google were first initiated.
Judge Metha found that Google maintained an unlawful monopoly in general search services and related advertising, primarily through exclusionary agreements with device manufacturers and browser developers. Rather than requiring the divestiture of valuable assets such as Chrome or Android, the court imposed behavioral remedies tailored to ensure competitive access. This choice reflects the realities of today’s digital markets, especially as generative AI reshapes how people search and discover information online.
Central to the Memorandum Opinion was that Google would not be required to divest Chrome and Android, but on the contrary, the Court would order a ban on Google’s exclusive distribution agreements across critical access points, including Chrome, Search, Google Assistant, and Gemini. Google may still pay partners for default placement, but only if those arrangements don’t block rivals from competing for the same slots. The aim is to give consumers more genuine choices and to acknowledge the rising competition from AI-driven search providers.
Perhaps the most groundbreaking element of the Memorandum Opinion is its requirement that Google share parts of its search index, user-interaction data (excluding ad data), and search and search text ads syndication services with qualified competitors, thereby promoting competition. This signals a shift in regulatory thinking: access to data is no longer just a competitive advantage but a necessary condition for fair competition.
In addition to this, Judge Amit Mehta ruled in his Memorandum Opinion that Google will not be required to implement search engine choice screens or encourage partners to do so, as such measures have not proven to enhance competition and would interfere with product design.
Google will also not have to share detailed query-level data with advertisers or reinstate the “exact match” keyword option, since the USA as plaintiffs failed to show that these would improve competition in search ads.
However, Google will be required to publicly disclose material changes to its ad auctions to increase transparency and prevent hidden price manipulation.
By requiring interoperability and improved data accessibility, the court seeks to stimulate innovation, empower smaller search engines, and facilitate the wave of AI-enabled discovery tools entering the market. Crucially, technical committee oversight will ensure that these obligations are implemented with due regard for privacy, latency, and security. The compliance challenges here are substantial – with Google’s immense user base and vast search infrastructure, data governance and antitrust expertise will need to work hand-in-hand.
For European businesses, these developments mirror, and in some ways build upon the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA already imposes proactive obligations on designated “gatekeepers,” addressing self-preferencing, default status, interoperability, and data portability across digital services. Whereas the US remedy arrives as a corrective after years of litigation, the DMA sets boundaries in advance, offering clarity and predictability for participants in Europe’s digital economy. DMA enforcement goes further and faster, allowing regulators to fine digital giants up to ten percent of global turnover for violations and to pursue more dramatic interventions for repeat offences.
The remedies will impact Europe directly. Companies that have long relied on Google for web traffic, advertising, or placement may now have greater opportunities to negotiate access under improved conditions, as rivals gain the ability to bid for preinstallation or default status. At the same time, publishers, e-commerce platforms, and vertical search engines—sectors previously constrained by Google’s exclusive agreements—could find new pathways to reach consumers.
For AI firms, access to Google’s search index and aggregated interaction data could prove transformative, accelerating development and competitive parity. Device manufacturers and app developers may now be able to offer alternative search engines by default or integrate competitive AI services more freely, stimulating a wider field of innovation and consumer choice.
From a legal and business strategy perspective, the Google antitrust ruling and latest activities and the EU’s DMA together will represent a new era of digital regulation. The court’s emphasis on technological innovation, competitive access, and data governance offers a preview of the principles that will guide regulatory oversight in the years to come.
For European businesses navigating this changing environment, the convergence of US and EU frameworks means more competitive opportunities but also more complex compliance responsibilities. To succeed, companies will need integrated strategies that align antitrust and data privacy concerns while remaining agile enough to adapt to ongoing regulatory developments.
The Memorandum Opinion and the expected amended ruling signal that market power alone is not immune from the changing tides of technological innovation and regulatory intervention. With ongoing oversight and the rise of AI-driven competition, the path ahead will require vigilance, adaptability, and legal acumen from all participants in the digital economy.
For a PDF version of the Memorandum Opinion, please click here.
Authors: Živko Simijonović, Uroš Rajić
