Yesterday, Judge Mehta released his ruling on the Google Search remedies. The court rightly rejected the DOJ’s extreme measures—such as forced divestitures—making clear that AI competition is strong in the tech ecosystem, and competition policy should help, not harm consumers. 

Robust AI competition has created competition and increased choice for consumers.

The government brought this case forward in 2020, when the tech industry looked completely different, before the advent of AI. In his ruling, Judge Mehta acknowledges that “the emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case.” 

— Tools like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Anthropic’s Claude are already transforming how users search and consume content, drawing billions in investment and millions of users in a matter of months.

— Perplexity, a rival AI-powered search engine, recorded ~153M visits in May 2025, a 191.9% increase from March 2024.

The tech industry moves at lightning speed, and the issues that were being litigated have completely changed since the government filed its lawsuit. 

Court rejects most extreme remedies.

By rejecting the most extreme remedies proposed by the DOJ, the court recognized that antitrust enforcement should not come at the expense of consumers and small businesses who freely choose Google’s products. A forced breakup, for example, would have degraded Chrome—which millions of consumers rely on—by stripping away integration and features that make it fast, secure, and free. Similarly, banning Google from paying for distribution would have undermined other popular browsers that depend on those deals to remain competitive and accessible.

The court rightly saw that these heavy-handed remedies would not have promoted competition, but instead would have left consumers with fewer choices, higher costs, and diminished products.