Judge Blocks Google Breakup But Orders Data Sharing and Deal Restrictions

Federal court mandates six-year oversight program while preserving lucrative Apple partnership worth $20 billion annually

A federal judge has rejected government calls to break up Google’s search empire but imposed significant business restrictions designed to curb the tech giant’s anticompetitive practices, setting up a landmark regulatory framework that could reshape how dominant technology companies operate.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta outlined remedies that bar Google from exclusive distribution deals tying Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini to revenue arrangements, while requiring the company to share search data with qualified competitors and offer services at standard rates.

No Breakup, But Major Operational Changes

The decision falls short of the Department of Justice’s request to force Google to divest Chrome and potentially Android, disappointing regulators who sought more aggressive action against the company’s search monopoly. Instead, Mehta opted for behavioral remedies lasting six years, enforced by a technical committee.

Google will be prohibited from conditioning Play Store licensing on app distribution requirements or tying revenue-sharing payments to maintaining specific applications. The company must also provide search index and user-interaction data to “qualified competitors” to prevent exclusionary behavior.

Apple Partnership Survives Regulatory Challenge

Apple’s stock jumped after-hours following news that its lucrative search agreement with Google can continue. The partnership, worth over $20 billion annually to Apple, represents Google’s largest default placement investment and gives Apple 36% of search ad revenue from Safari browsers.

Google spent more than $26 billion in 2021 securing default search placements across devices, with $18 billion going directly to Apple. Judge Mehta previously characterized these default positions as “extremely valuable real estate” that effectively locked out competitors.

Data Sharing Requirements Create New Competition Dynamic

The court’s data-sharing mandate represents a middle ground between DOJ requests for comprehensive access and Google’s resistance to revealing proprietary algorithms. Competitors will gain access to certain search data under privacy-protected terms, though the scope remains more limited than European Union requirements under the Digital Markets Act.

CEO Sundar Pichai argued during hearings that forced data-sharing would constitute “de facto divestiture” of Google Search, while the company maintained that broader access would jeopardize user privacy and undermine R&D investment.

European Model Influences U.S. Approach

Judge Mehta referenced the EU’s Digital Markets Act as a framework, though his order is narrower and temporary compared to Europe’s ongoing obligations. The comparison highlights growing transatlantic coordination in technology regulation and questions about optimal approaches to platform governance.

“This has inspired a big debate about whether Europeans with the Digital Markets Act have it right,” said William Kovacic, a competition law professor at George Washington University and former FTC commissioner. “Does the European experience tell us something about feasibility and implementation here?”

Parallel Cases Complicate Enforcement Landscape

The search remedies decision occurs alongside Google’s separate advertising technology antitrust trial, where Judge Leonie Brinkema found the company illegally monopolized ad-tech markets in April 2025. The DOJ’s parallel remedy processes represent unprecedented regulatory coordination against a single dominant technology company.

“We’ve never had a circumstance in which the Department of Justice has had two largely parallel cases involving major elements of alleged misconduct against the same dominant firm,” Kovacic noted.

Implementation Timeline and Appeals Process

Google and the DOJ must submit a revised final judgment by September 10, with the six-year oversight program beginning 60 days after entry. However, the ultimate impact depends on Google’s expected appeals process, which could extend resolution until 2027 or 2028.

The technical committee will monitor compliance with data-sharing requirements and distribution restrictions, creating ongoing regulatory oversight of Google’s business practices in search and related services.

Broader Implications for Tech Regulation

The decision establishes important precedents for antitrust enforcement against technology platforms, balancing competitive concerns with innovation incentives. The data-sharing requirements particularly could influence how other dominant platforms approach competitor access and market openness.

While avoiding the dramatic step of forced divestiture, the remedies create new competitive dynamics in search markets and establish frameworks for ongoing regulatory oversight of technology giants’ business practices.

The case resolution will likely influence global approaches to technology regulation and provide insights into the effectiveness of behavioral remedies versus structural separation in addressing platform monopolization.