U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta granted that request in a landmark ruling. Specifically, he ruled that Google systematically violated federal antitrust laws to preserve its dominance in online search and advertising technology. This ruling, handed down in the midst of an antitrust trial, poses overwhelming implications for the leading tech giant’s future business practices. Google will be under new restrictions. These rules will bar the company from entering into exclusive distribution agreements that tie the company’s services to other apps or revenue-sharing agreements.
The court’s ruling stems from an extensive investigation into Google’s business practices, particularly its distribution agreement with Apple, which reportedly involved payments exceeding $20 billion. Judge Mehta agreed with DOJ’s arguments that Google’s strategy of winning default placements for its search engine amounted to a foreclosure of rival competitors. He called this reality the blocking of access to “super valuable real estate.” This simple maneuver had the effect of crushing competition and ensuring Google’s monopoly in the online search market.
At that point, in April 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema had already decided that Google had illegally monopolized the ad-tech markets. This ruling is the latest victory in the ongoing legal crusade against the tech giant. It’s fighting similar cases related to its advertising technology business. Judge Mehta’s ruling will lead to six years’ worth of long lasting remedies. These alterations will go into effect 60 days after the ruling is entered, a monumental change in the way Google has operated in these industries.
The court’s decision is not without controversy. As we head toward the remedies trial, now scheduled for late September, the case shifts dramatically in tone and scope. Next, we will focus on the proposed divestitures and other remedies put forth by DOJ. The creation of a technical committee will help with the implementation of the final judgment against Google.
Judge Mehta specifically called out Europe’s Digital Markets Act as an example during the hearing. He described it as a helpful framework for putting guardrails on the new superfunds of the tech industry. This has led to a large and healthy debate amongst legal academics over whether descriptive rules (or prophylactic rules) really work better than normal case-by-case adjudication. William Kovacic, a prominent antitrust scholar, remarked, “This has inspired a big debate about whether Europeans with the Digital Markets Act have it right.” He challenged the need for prescriptive rules rather than leaving questions to technical evaluations of specific situations.
Yet, notwithstanding this ruling, Google’s legal challenges are not finished. The tech giant is now appealing Judge Mehta’s ruling. This may all end up in front of the Supreme Court. This drawn-out process could push resolution of Google’s case all the way to late 2027 or early 2028. This has led the company into a deepening and troubling period of limbo.
Yet, Google is under the weight of this ruling. As such, it bears directly on the merits of its ongoing antitrust trial concerning its advertising technology behemoth. The interconnectedness of these legal challenges highlight the complexity of the regulatory landscape facing big tech today.
