What Google Can and Cannot Do After Landmark US Court Ruling
<p><strong>Landmark Antitrust Ruling Imposes Major Restrictions on Google</strong></p><p><strong>Washington, D.C.:</strong> In a significant <strong>antitrust decision</strong> on <strong>September 2, 2025</strong>, U.S. District Judge <strong>Amit Mehta</strong> imposed major restrictions on <strong>Google’s business practices</strong> to restore competition in the search market. The ruling follows a <strong>2024 finding</strong> that Google violated U.S. antitrust laws under <strong>Section 2 of the Sherman Act</strong>.</p><p>While the judge did <strong>not order Google to sell Chrome</strong>, the world’s most widely used browser, the company is <strong>barred from signing exclusive agreements</strong> that make Google the default search engine on devices such as Apple’s Safari or Samsung smartphones.</p><p><strong>What It Means for Users</strong></p><p>Device makers can now preload alternative search engines like <strong>Bing, DuckDuckGo, or Opera</strong>.</p><p><strong>Chrome’s privacy mode</strong> must allow users to set different default search engines.</p><p>Google can still pay for default placement, meaning habitual users may continue using it.</p><p><strong>Impact on Innovation</strong></p><p>Google must <strong>share parts of its search index and user interaction data</strong> with qualified competitors, enabling smaller players to develop search engines and AI models.</p><p>This could accelerate <strong>generative AI innovation</strong>, though critics warn about potential privacy and security concerns.</p><p><strong>What Google Can Do</strong></p><p>Keep <strong>Chrome and Android</strong>; no forced divestiture.</p><p>Continue <strong>paid placement</strong> for non-exclusive search deals (limited to one-year contracts).</p><p>Develop <strong>Gemini AI and other search products</strong> without restriction.</p><p><strong>Appeal the ruling</strong>; Google has already signaled plans to challenge both liability and remedies.</p><p><strong>What Google Cannot Do</strong></p><p>Sign <strong>exclusive default contracts</strong> for search.</p><p>Force <strong>Play Store licensing or revenue sharing</strong> based on other Google apps.</p><p>Block competitors’ access; must share search index and usage data under court oversight.</p><p>Ignore oversight; a <strong>technical committee will monitor compliance for six years</strong>.</p><p><strong>The Bigger Picture</strong><br>This ruling is among the most consequential antitrust decisions since the <strong>Microsoft case in the 1990s</strong>, reflecting the government’s push to rein in Big Tech while preserving innovation. With Google controlling nearly <strong>90% of the global search market</strong>, competitors like DuckDuckGo argue the measures don’t go far enough. The case also sets a precedent for <strong>ongoing legal scrutiny</strong> of Meta, Amazon, and Apple.</p><p>Judge Mehta summarized the decision bluntly: “<strong>Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.</strong>”</p>