Judge Issues Narrow Remedies to Curb Google Search Practices

A federal judge has issued tentative behavioral remedies aimed at reining in Google’s search dominance without forcing a breakup. U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta's outline bars certain exclusive distribution and revenue arrangements and requires limited data sharing so qualified competitors can compete more effectively.

Key elements of Mehta’s proposed changes include prohibitions on tying the distribution of Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini to other apps or to licensing and revenue-share deals. Concretely, Google couldn’t make Play Store licensing conditional on bundling certain apps or link revenue-share payments to keeping apps in place.

The order also requires Google to share certain search index and user-interaction data with qualified competitors under controlled terms and to offer search and search ad syndication at standard rates. The aim is to prevent exclusionary behavior while allowing rivals to deliver meaningful results as they build their own technology stacks.

Mehta stopped short of the Department of Justice’s most aggressive remedies. The DOJ had pushed for divestitures and an end to Google’s lucrative default search arrangements with Apple, Samsung and others. Instead, Mehta ordered the parties to "meet and confer" and submit a revised final judgment by September 10 that aligns with his opinion.

The remedies are temporary, set to last six years and take effect 60 days after entry, and will be supervised by a technical committee. The decision follows Mehta’s 2024 finding that Google unlawfully maintained a search monopoly and arrives as Google faces parallel antitrust scrutiny in advertising technology.

Why this matters

Defaults are powerful. During the trial, the judge emphasized that default placements are extremely valuable real estate because most users stick with them. By tying defaults to other agreements, rivals were locked out and lost the ability to scale, reducing competition and innovation in search and adjacent markets.

Google has defended its practices, warning forced data-sharing could undercut privacy, harm investments in R&D, and amount to a de facto divestiture. The judge referenced Europe’s Digital Markets Act as a loose guide but issued a narrower, temporary remedy than the DMA’s ongoing obligations.

Financial context is stark: Google spent tens of billions securing default placements — more than $26 billion in 2021 alone, with roughly $18 billion going to Apple, which shares search ad revenue with Google. Market signals were immediate: Apple stock rose after news that some agreements could continue.

What companies should do now

• Map current dependencies on Google defaults and quantify revenue tied to default placements.
• Build technical and legal plans for interoperable access to search index and interaction data that preserve user privacy.
• Stress-test alternative distribution strategies — from preinstalled apps to promoted in-device experiences — to reduce single-vendor exposure.
• Prepare to participate in syndication or standard-rate contracts, and model their impact on ad revenue and user experience quality.

The order is likely to ripple across device makers, publishers, advertisers and search challengers. For startups building alternative search or AI-driven assistants, the changes could lower barriers to entry if access to index data and syndication is implemented meaningfully. For incumbents, the ruling creates a compliance and strategic planning imperative.

This is not the end of the story. Google can appeal, and other antitrust fights — including remedies in a separate ad-tech case — are unfolding. Experts expect litigation and negotiations to play out over years, with some outcomes possibly stretching to 2027 or 2028.

For organizations navigating this transition, the practical challenge is balancing competition, innovation, and privacy. Technical committees and short-term remedies create a window for companies to adapt policies, rework commercial agreements, and build interoperable systems that meet regulators’ goals without sacrificing user protections.

QuarkyByte’s approach to this kind of change combines competitive analysis, technical architecture reviews, and compliance-ready scenario modeling. We help stakeholders quantify financial exposures, design privacy-safe data-sharing blueprints, and test alternative distribution models so organizations can act quickly as rules crystallize.

This story is developing and the parties must file a final judgment proposal by September 10. Expect further negotiation, potential appeals, and more detailed technical requirements as the government and Google refine what meaningful competition looks like in search.