On September 2, the US District Judge Amit Mehta delivered a judgment that was possibly predictable but disappointing. While maintaining his August 2024 finding that Google illegally monopolised the search market, Mehta rejected the Department of Justice’s request to force Google to divest Chrome, calling such a breakup a “poor fit.” Instead, he opted for what amounts to a regulatory slap on the wrist: Barring Google’s exclusive search deals and requiring limited data sharing.

This outcome represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how monopoly power operates in the digital age, particularly as artificial intelligence transforms the very nature of search itself. The judge’s reluctance to pursue structural remedies reflects an outdated approach to antitrust enforcement that fails to grasp the interconnected nature of Google’s ecosystem. Chrome isn’t merely a browser — it’s the gateway through which Google collects invaluable user data that feeds directly into its search algorithms and advertising systems. By allowing Google to retain control over this critical infrastructure while merely prohibiting certain contractual arrangements, Mehta has essentially left the monopoly intact while creating the illusion of meaningful reform.