Characterizing the government’s proposals as “extreme,” a U.S. judge has opted for a softer touch in remedying Google’s search monopoly, rejecting a corporate breakup in favor of less disruptive measures. The decision allows Google to avoid the forced sale of its Chrome web browser, which the Department of Justice had argued was essential.
During the remedies hearing, Google’s lawyers consistently portrayed the government’s demands as radical and harmful to the American economy and technological leadership. Judge Amit Mehta’s final ruling appeared to adopt much of this framing, stating that the DOJ had “overreached” in its request for divestiture.
Instead of this “extreme” remedy, the court chose a path of behavioral modification. Google will be forced to change how it makes deals with partners and will have to share some data, but its fundamental structure as an integrated technology company will not change. This approach prioritizes caution and avoids the unpredictable consequences of a forced breakup.
The ruling is a clear signal that even when a company is found to have broken antitrust law, courts may still be very hesitant to deploy the most powerful weapon in the regulatory arsenal. This preference for a lighter touch is a significant victory for Google and a point of frustration for those who believe only a breakup can truly restore competition.