Judge Orders Google to Share Search Data but Rejects Forced Breakup as AI Upends Search Landscape

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered a series of remedies aimed at curbing Google’s dominance in online search but stopped short of the breakup sought by the U.S. Department of Justice, a decision that reflects the shifting competitive landscape driven by artificial intelligence.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, in a 226-page opinion, found that Google had used its position as the default search engine to maintain monopoly power but concluded that forcing the company to divest assets such as the Chrome browser or its Android operating system would overreach. Instead, Mehta ordered Google to share certain search-related data with rival providers and barred exclusive default search contracts, while permitting Google to continue making payments to partners under more limited terms.

Mehta’s ruling represents a calibrated approach. "Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints," he wrote, rejecting the department’s request that Google be required to sell Chrome or submit its Android software to court oversight. The judge said remedies should be tailored to address the conduct found unlawful without destabilizing an industry that is rapidly changing.

The decision comes as the traditional model of search is being challenged by AI-driven "answer engines" — conversational systems such as ChatGPT and Perplexity that synthesize information and provide direct answers. Mehta noted that the rise of AI complicated the court’s task, writing that the case required the court to "gaze into a crystal ball" about the future of search — a task he acknowledged is not a judge’s typical forte.

Under the order, Google must share certain search data and algorithmic signals with competitors to enable rivals to deliver improved results and ad products. The company also faces new limits on exclusive agreements that make Google the default search provider on browsers, phones and other devices. However, the ruling does not impose an outright ban on payments that Google makes to companies such as Apple or major wireless carriers to secure default status; Mehta instead restricted the terms under which exclusivity can be achieved.

The remedies were shaped in part during three weeks of hearings in April and conclude nearly five years of litigation that the DOJ filed during the Trump administration and that the Biden administration has continued. The trial’s liability phase previously concluded with Mehta finding that Google was a monopolist in search.

Tech industry and market reactions were swift. Alphabet shares rose sharply on the ruling, jumping about 8% in early trading, as investors welcomed the avoidance of a structural breakup and the preservation, in practice, of lucrative default agreements. Apple’s stock gained nearly 4% as analysts noted the ruling preserved a significant stream of payments tied to default search status on iPhones. Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives described the outcome as a "monster win" for both Google and Apple, saying it removed a major regulatory overhang on the companies.

Critics of the decision said the remedies fall short of meaningful constraints. Barry Lynn, executive director of the Open Markets Institute, said the ruling amounted to a "slap on the wrist" that would embolden dominant firms. Antitrust advocates argued that preserving Google’s control over defaults, even with new limits, leaves barriers intact for smaller search providers.

Google characterized the decision as a validation of its position and pointed to the emergence of AI as a factor that has changed the market dynamics since the lawsuit was filed. According to media reports, Google CEO Sundar Pichai later attended a White House dinner where he expressed relief at the resolution, telling President Donald Trump "I'm glad it's over," remarks that drew attention amid the high-profile gathering of technology executives.

The DOJ has not publicly announced whether it will appeal aspects of Mehta’s ruling. Legal experts and industry watchers say the case — both its outcome and its remedies — will be closely studied as regulators worldwide weigh how to police dominant digital platforms in an era when AI is reshaping how users seek and receive information.

Mehta’s order aims to strike a balance between remedying illegal conduct and preserving competition in a market in flux. By requiring data sharing while declining to force structural divestitures, the ruling sets a novel template for antitrust relief in technology markets where rapid innovation, particularly in AI, complicates predictions about future competition and consumer harm.