The final chapter of the U.S. v. Google trial reveals a judge meticulously balancing a finding of past wrongdoing with the promise of future innovation. Judge Amit Mehta’s measured remedy acknowledges Google’s illegal monopoly but calibrates the punishment based on his belief that artificial intelligence will soon reshape the competitive landscape.
This balancing act is evident throughout the ruling. On one side, the judge imposed clear penalties: Google must end exclusive deals, open up its Android app bundling, and share search data. These actions directly address the anti-competitive conduct proven at trial and are meant to provide immediate relief to competitors.
On the other side, the judge pulled back from the most severe options. He allowed Google’s lucrative payments to Apple to continue and rejected the sale of Chrome, explicitly citing the “emergence of Gen AI” as the reason. This shows a willingness to let predicted market evolution do some of the regulatory work.
The result is a compromise that will satisfy neither the staunchest trustbusters nor Google’s most ardent defenders. It is a decision rooted in a complex, forward-looking view of technology, attempting to fix the problems of today without stifling the competition of tomorrow.