The future direction of one of the world’s most influential tech companies, Google, now depends on a ruling from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering whether to enforce sweeping reforms following a declaration that Google’s search engine operates as an illegal monopoly.
On Friday, the judge listened to final arguments in a high-stakes legal showdown. Lawyers from the U.S. Justice Department advocated for a major restructuring, arguing that significant intervention is essential to ensure a competitive market. Among their proposed remedies are banning Google from paying to make its search engine the default on smartphones and compelling the tech giant to divest its Chrome web browser.
Google’s attorneys, however, maintained that only minimal adjustments are necessary and warned against imposing extreme sanctions that could jeopardize future innovation. They further asserted that the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence is already altering the digital search ecosystem. According to Google’s legal team, AI-powered conversational search platforms from emerging companies are starting to disrupt the market, and some of these startups are hoping that the DOJ’s years-long case will give them an edge in this new technological era.
Judge Mehta seemed to be giving genuine thought to the role of AI as he acknowledged the remarkable pace at which the industry is developing. Yet, he appeared uncertain about how much weight the rise of AI should carry in his forthcoming decision. “This is what I’ve been struggling with,” Mehta admitted.
Throughout the hearing, Mehta took an active role, frequently speaking and posing detailed questions to both sides. His remarks suggested he was searching for a balanced solution somewhere between the extreme measures proposed by the Justice Department and the more limited remedies sought by Google.
“We’re not looking to kneecap Google,” Mehta clarified during the proceedings. He emphasized that his aim was to “kickstart” competition so that rivals could begin to effectively challenge Google’s dominance in search.
The judge is expected to deliberate throughout the summer and intends to issue a final ruling by Labor Day. Although Google plans to appeal the decision that labeled its search engine a monopoly, the company must wait until Mehta delivers a ruling on the proposed remedies before it can move forward with an appeal.
Google’s lead attorney, John Schmidtlein, requested a 60-day delay in the implementation of any court-mandated changes. This suggestion was promptly opposed by Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist, who responded, “We believe the market’s waited long enough.”
While both sides acknowledge that AI is a transformative force within the industry, they diverge on what impact it will have on Google’s dominance. The Justice Department believes that AI innovation alone won’t be enough to challenge the tech giant’s grip on search. Instead, they argue that formal legal restrictions are necessary to break Google’s monopoly—one that has helped parent company Alphabet Inc. reach a valuation of $2 trillion.
In response, Google has already started integrating AI into its search operations to morph its platform into what it calls an “answer engine.” This AI-driven transformation has so far helped the company maintain its position as the primary entry point to the internet, even as companies like OpenAI and Perplexity begin gaining ground with alternative tools.
One of the most significant and contentious proposals from the Justice Department is the potential divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser. Chrome, which was spearheaded nearly two decades ago by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, remains one of the most widely used web browsers. The DOJ believes that forcing Google to sell Chrome would limit its ability to consolidate massive amounts of browser traffic and personal data—resources that could further entrench its power in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAI and Perplexity have expressed interest in acquiring Chrome should the court order its sale.
The ongoing debate over Google’s future has attracted input from several key players in the tech and legal world, including Apple, app developers, legal scholars, and startup founders.
Apple, which reportedly earns over $20 billion annually for making Google the default search engine on iPhones and other devices, filed legal briefs objecting to the Justice Department’s proposed 10-year ban on such deals. Apple argued that ending these lucrative arrangements would cut off funding it uses for its own research and development. Furthermore, Apple claimed the ban might paradoxically strengthen Google’s position, as consumers would likely continue choosing its search engine regardless. The company also told the judge that it has no intention of developing its own search platform to compete with Google.
In a separate set of filings, a group of legal scholars voiced concern that forcing Google to divest Chrome would constitute an undue penalty and signal excessive government intrusion into business operations. Meanwhile, two former Federal Trade Commission officials, James Cooper and Andrew Stivers, raised alarms about another proposal that would require Google to share its data with competitors. They warned that such a move “does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship” of their personal information.
During Friday’s hearing, Mehta remarked that compared to other remedies suggested by the Justice Department, the idea of forcing Google to part with Chrome involved “less speculation” about potential fallout in the broader tech market. However, Schmidtlein rejected that assessment, contending that such a measure would be excessive and unjust. “I think that would be inequitable in the extreme,” he told the judge.
Justice Department lawyer Dahlquist was quick to dismiss what he considered exaggerated objections to the proposed divestiture. “Google thinks it’s the only one who can invest things,” he said, implying that others could innovate just as effectively if given the chance.
As Judge Mehta prepares to issue his final ruling by the end of summer, the outcome could reshape not only Google’s business model but also the future landscape of internet search and competition in the age of artificial intelligence.