A US judge has characterized the government’s proposals to break up Google as an “overreach,” decisively ruling against the forced sale of the company’s Chrome browser and other key assets. The decision marks a significant setback for the Department of Justice in the biggest US antitrust case in a generation.
Judge Amit Mehta, in his written ruling, stated that the government “overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets.” He concluded that a breakup was not a necessary remedy, especially in light of the new competitive pressures emerging from the artificial intelligence sector. This reasoning essentially protected the core structure of Google’s business from being dismantled.
The verdict is a powerful affirmation of Google’s arguments during the remedies hearing, where the company contended that the DOJ’s proposals were extreme and would harm consumers and the US economy. The judge appeared to agree, opting instead for less disruptive measures, including a ban on exclusive contracts and a requirement for data sharing with competitors.
This outcome may force the DOJ and other regulators to rethink their strategies in future cases against Big Tech. The ruling suggests that courts may be hesitant to impose structural remedies like breakups, preferring behavioral changes instead, particularly when faced with rapidly innovating technology markets. The DOJ has stated it is now weighing its options, which could include an appeal.