Washington, D.C. — Despite finding last year that Google illegally maintained a monopoly over search and search advertising, Judge Amit Mehta today declined to follow the law and terminate the monopoly. He left Google in control over Chrome, Android, and its vast data advantage, and even refused to ban Google’s multibillion-dollar search default deal. He declined to prevent Google from leveraging YouTube, Gemini, and Android to self-preference its own services. In response, the American Economic Liberties Project released the following statement.

“You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot,” said Nidhi Hegde, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project. “Similarly, you don’t find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed.”

“The Court found Google liable for maintaining one of the most consequential and damaging monopolies of the internet era,” added Hegde, “yet has bizarrely decided to leave its power almost fully intact. Imposing liability in name only is pure judicial cowardice. This ruling leaves the public unprotected, crucial and evolving markets concentrated, and worse, sends a signal that will embolden monopolists everywhere. We hope the DOJ and state AGs who presented a compelling set of remedies that were commensurate to Google’s harms swiftly appeal this decision.”

The Supreme Court has long held — and common sense would indicate — that courts must terminate illegal monopolies. Judge Mehta has defied that precedent — and worse, entrenched an unrealistic causation standard for remedies that could embolden monopolists everywhere in doing so — has given Google a free pass to keep the choke points that built and sustain its dominance.

Structural relief has been a bipartisan objective in this case since day one: the original Complaint filed in October 2020 under the first Trump administration called for “structural relief.” After the historic victory against Google in August 2024, the Biden DOJ (with the support of a bipartisan group of state attorneys general spanning the political spectrum from Mississippi to Colorado) specifically proposed divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser (and, if remedies do not restore competition, potentially the Android operating system). The current Trump DOJ likewise sought these remedies in a revised proposal filed in March 2025.

This decision from the district court of D.C. is not binding authority on the Eastern District of Virginia, where Judge Brinkema will be holding a hearing on Google adtech remedies shortly.

Reach Economic Liberties’ proposed remedies framework here.

Read Economic Liberties amicus brief in the search case here.

Read DOJ’s Revised Proposed Final Judgment here and its Executive Summary here.

Visit the Kent Walker Influence Tracker here.

Learn more about Economic Liberties here. 

###

The American Economic Liberties Project works to ensure America’s system of commerce is structured to advance, rather than undermine, economic liberty, fair commerce, and a secure, inclusive democracy. Economic Liberties believes true economic liberty means entrepreneurs and businesses large and small succeed on the merits of their ideas and hard work; commerce empowers consumers, workers, farmers, and engineers instead of subjecting them to discrimination and abuse from financiers and monopolists; foreign trade arrangements support domestic security and democracy; and wealth is broadly distributed to support equitable political power.