BBC, September 2025
In the modern internet era, few monopoly cases have been as closely scrutinised in Silicon Valley – and beyond – as the US government’s landmark case challenging Google’s dominance in online search. Not since US v Microsoft, filed in 1998, has Big Tech felt so threatened.
But a year after ruling that Google was “a monopolist,” Judge Amit Mehta proposed a series of remedies that some – though not everyone – view as letting Google off lightly. The prospect of a company breakup loomed large during the remedies phase of the case. Ultimately, Judge Mehta decided not to force Google to spin off Chrome, the world’s most popular browser, as government lawyers had requested.
The US Department of Justice had also proposed court oversight of the company’s Android operating system to ensure the company refrains from using its ecosystem to “favour its general search services and search text ad monopolies.” Both Chrome and Android emerged unscathed in Judge Mehta’s ruling. “[T]hose were the mechanisms for gaining share, for preventing the emergence of new competitors, and for monetizing its search monopoly,” said John Kwoka, an economics professor at Northeastern University.
