What the Google Antitrust Ruling Means for the Future of Tech Competition and Private Enforcement

by Sydney D. Finlay and Samuel Indermaur

The September 2, 2025 decision in United States et al. v. Google marks a pivotal moment in U.S. antitrust enforcement against domineering technology companies. After finding in August 2024 that Google illegally maintained monopolies in general search and search text advertising,  Judge Amit Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia opted for an array of behavioral remedies rather than a breakup—softening the blow on what could have been a crippling order for the tech giant.

What Did the Court Decide in the Google Antitrust Ruling?

The court ruled that Google will have to make available certain search index and user interaction data, though not ads data. Google must end exclusive contracts that make its Search, Chrome browser, Google Assistant, and Gemini app the default on devices or browsers; and any revenue-sharing agreements must “unwind,” notably including Google’s multi-billion-dollar agreement with Apple to make the software company’s search engine to be the default on iPhones.

Judge Mehta’s antitrust ruling also requires the company to give “Qualified Competitors” access to portions of its search index and click-and-query data, stating that “a comprehensive and current [search] index is critical to returning high-quality search results.” Further, Google must publicly disclose material changes to its advertising auctions and submit to oversight by a technical compliance committee. These orders significantly curtail Google’s search engine dominance, which controls over 90% of the market.

Why Does this Ruling Matter for How Big Tech Operates?

The decision sends a strong signal that exclusive agreements are vulnerable under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, affecting other Big Tech companies like Apple, who reportedly receives $20 billion annually from Google. The ruling also acknowledges the “astonishing” shifting Artificial Intelligence landscape, which has rapidly changed the ways users search for information. As the Federal Trade Commission begins probing consumer AI platforms, large scale model providers—such as OpenAI and Anthropic—may face similar allegations for using  privileged data to train their models.

Other Big Tech companies are also under scrutiny from regulatory bodies for antitrust behaviors. After an investigation into Microsoft’s bundling of Teams with Office 365, the European Commission demanded the company sell its packages at reduced prices. Microsoft agreed to increase the price difference between packages with and without Teams by 50% for certain business segments. An ongoing lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission challenging Meta’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram combined with a decrease in consumer satisfaction could lead to the restructuring of the world’s largest social media conglomerate.

In the case of Google, the court-endorsed behavioral remedies in lieu of targeted break-ups reflect Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater’s previous remarks of a preference for “litigation over regulation” under the new Trump administration. While Big Tech companies are far from absolved from antitrust investigations and penalties for anti-competitive practices, it seems that the Justice Department will seek a less active role in pursuing companies on its own, instead relying on citizen responses and whistleblower reports.

How Could this Ruling Help Smaller Companies Compete with Google?

By requiring Google to provide search index and click-and-query data to its competitors, the ruling opens the door for alternative search engines and Artificial Intelligence chatbots to take off as sources of credible information. Mandatory five-year syndication licenses reduce costs for new entrants and competitors, like Bing, by providing quality data and reducing scaling costs. By restricting exclusive partnerships, alternative search engines have a greater opportunity to gain visibility as Google will no longer be the guaranteed default on iPhones and other devices.

What this Case Means Moving Forward

The increased scrutiny of consolidation in the technology industry, especially as Artificial Intelligence cements itself in the mainstream, reflects broader trends in antitrust enforcement. Antitrust enforcement is a central area where Miller Shah LLP litigates and monitors developments impacting competition and consumer markets. Having successfully litigated cases alongside agencies like the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Miller Shah LLP understands  how to hold employers accountable.