Google Antitrust Loss, Rulings and Remedies on September 08, 2025

Key Findings

• Google had a monopoly in search and search advertising markets and illegally used exclusionary practices, like expensive default distribution deals with phone makers and browser developers, to maintain its monopoly.

• The court ruled that Google unlawfully used this monopoly power to prevent competitors from entering the market and to drive up digital ad prices.

• A key aspect of the illegal conduct involved Google's exclusive agreements with partners like Apple, mobile carriers, and device manufacturers, which made Google the default search engine on their platforms. 

Remedies & Rulings

Mehta's rulings and required remedies were entered on September 2, 2025. Below is a breakdown of the judgment handed down.

• Prohibition of Exclusive Contracts - Google can no longer enter into exclusive deals that lock out competitors from being the default search engine on devices and browsers.

• Permitted Payments for Placement - The ruling does not ban Google from paying for default placement but requires the arrangements to be non-exclusive.

• Data Sharing Mandated - Google must share portions of its search index and user interaction data with qualified competitors on commercial terms, although ads data is excluded.

• Rejection of Structural Remedies - The court declined the government's request to break up Google or force it to sell off parts of its business, such as the Chrome browser.

• No Choice Screen - The court also rejected the demand for a consumer-facing choice screen, leaving such decisions to distribution partners.

• Six-Year Oversight - A technical committee will oversee the implementation of these remedies for six years.

WHAT THIS MEANS

This ruling impacts search distribution, data access, and competitive strategy over the next six years. The rest of the article discusses what it means for Search Engine Optimization SEO, Pay-Per-Click PPC, publishers, and the emerging generation of AI-driven search assistants.

SEARCH AND SEO

Under the old system, Google’s exclusive deals ensured it was the default on Safari, Android, and beyond. Now, partners can take money from multiple providers. That turns the default position into more of a marketplace, not a citadel.

Apple, in particular, gains leverage. Court records revealed that Google paid Apple $20 billion in 2022 and paid $26.3 billion in 2021 – the figure is not to any one company, but Apple likely represents the largest recipient – to remain Safari’s default search engine. Without exclusivity, Apple can entertain bids from Microsoft, OpenAI, or others – potentially extracting even more money by selling multiple placements or rotating defaults.

New UX experiments such as rotating search tiles, auction-based setup flows, or AI assistant shortcuts integrated into operating systems. Distribution partners like Samsung or Mozilla could pilot “multi-home defaults,” where Google, Bing, and an AI engine all coexist in visible slots.

Index-sharing and limited interaction data access remove barriers for rivals. Crawling the web is expensive; licensing Google’s index could accelerate challengers like Bing, Perplexity, or OpenAI ’s rumored search product.

But it’s not full equity. Without ads data and ranking signals, competitors must still differentiate on product experience. Think faster answers, vertical specialization, or superior AI integration. As I like to put it: Index access gives challengers legs, not lungs. A lot hangs on how “qualified competitor” is defined. A varying definition could limit access to a token few; a broad one could empower a new wave of vertical and AI-driven search entrants.

AI ASSISTANTS

The court acknowledged that generative AI reshaped its view of competition. Assistants like Copilot, Gemini, or Perplexity are increasingly acting as intent routers – answering directly, citing sources, or routing users to transactions without a traditional SERP. Perplexity AI is introducing Comet, a browser being touted as “a personal shopper and personal assistant all in one.” That means the battle for distribution may shift from browsers and search bars to AI copilots embedded in operating systems, apps, and devices. If users increasingly ask their assistant instead of typing a query, exclusivity deals matter less than who owns the assistant. For SEO and Search Engine Marketing SEM professionals, this accelerates the shift toward zero-click answers, assistant-ready content, and schema that supports citations.

PAY-PER-CLICK

PPC may effect advertising by increasing competition, impacting ad costs, and forcing changes to ad placement and compliance. Advertisers will need to diversify their strategies across platforms, as Google’s market position is altered by the antitrust decisions.

Inevitably, Google could face rising traffic acquisition costs (TAC) as Apple, Samsung, and carriers auction off default positions. Defending its distribution may get more expensive, eating into margins. Without a choice screen, search market share is likely to shift gradually, not collapse. Google’s U.S. query share to remain in the high 80s in the near term, with only single-digit erosion as rivals experiment with new models.

The Department of Justice’s separate antitrust case against Google’s ad-tech stack, is yet moving toward remedies hearings in Virginia. If that case results in structural changes – that could force Google to separate its publisher ad server from its exchange – it could reshape how search ads are purchased, measured, and monetized.

CONCLUSION

For publishers, the antitrust cases matter. If rivals gain footing with AI-driven assistants, referral traffic could diversify – but also become more volatile, depending on how assistants handle citations and click-throughs. Google’s case is far from over. The tech giant has long maintained it would file an appeal for both the remedies and Mehta’s findings that the tech company violated federal antitrust laws with its search engine dominance. It remains to be seen if the appeal will be filed or won.

Google stock has gained value since the antitrust ruling, rising over 8% after the decision that spared the company from having to sell its Chrome browser and Android operating system. This positive market reaction added significant value to Alphabet’s market capitalization.