Technology / Google
**Updated: September 2, 2025, 9:19 PM UTC**

**US v. Google: Comprehensive Coverage of the High-Stakes Antitrust Battle**
by Verge Staff

—

On August 5, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta delivered a historic verdict in the case of *United States of America v. Google*. His unequivocal statement left little room for interpretation: “The court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as such in order to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” This ruling marked the first time in decades that a federal court so decisively declared a modern technology giant guilty of anticompetitive conduct, instantly drawing parallels with the legendary Microsoft antitrust trial of the 1990s.

Nearly one year later, in a long-anticipated follow-up ruling, Judge Mehta announced his decisions regarding remedies for Google’s entrenched dominance in online search. Attorneys from the Department of Justice had aggressively argued that Google should be structurally separated — meaning the forced divestiture of some of its core products, including Search, Chrome, and Android — to restore competitive balance. However, Judge Mehta stopped short of endorsing such sweeping measures. Instead, he prohibited Google from entering into exclusive distribution agreements, but he permitted the company to retain certain highly lucrative arrangements — including its massive search-default deal with Apple — and further allowed it to continue ownership of its Chrome web browser.

This carefully balanced outcome highlights both the complexity and limitations of antitrust law when applied to digital platforms whose ecosystems touch nearly every aspect of how consumers access online information. By choosing not to compel a breakup of the company, Judge Mehta signaled caution in adopting drastic remedies that could have far-reaching, and potentially destabilizing, consequences for the broader technology landscape. Nevertheless, his ruling underscores the court’s recognition that Google’s past behavior was harmful to competition and requires corrective measures.

Even so, the end of this chapter does not close the book on the largest antitrust confrontation the United States has pursued since the government’s battle with Microsoft. Indeed, litigation involving Google’s advertising business remains ongoing, and both Google and the Justice Department are preparing for appeals that will likely shape the contours of the case for years to come. As these proceedings continue, the future of digital competition, online search, and even emerging technologies like generative AI assistants will be profoundly influenced by the outcomes.

The following sections provide detailed updates, analyses, and highlights from inside the courtroom — offering a closer look at the legal strategies, economic debates, and far-reaching implications of this landmark case.

**Key Developments and Highlights:**
– Judge Mehta rules that Google may retain Chrome, rejecting calls for divestiture.
– DOJ proposals for aggressive structural remedies, including splitting Google’s businesses, are denied.
– Exclusive distribution deals are prohibited, though default agreements like the one with Apple remain intact.
– A central question emerges: Can banning exclusivity foster genuine search competition without harming smaller distributors dependent on Google’s financial arrangements?
– The case continues to reverberate beyond search, touching on browsers, AI, and advertising markets, while setting precedent for future regulation of Big Tech corporations.

Ultimately, *US v. Google* has become far more than a legal dispute between a government agency and a corporate giant; it is a referendum on the rules that will define the internet’s next era. Its outcome could determine whether innovation is distributed across a competitive marketplace or remains concentrated in the hands of a few global behemoths.

Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/23869483/us-v-google-search-antitrust-case-updates