The remedies ruling in the Google Search antitrust case “marks a critical juncture in antitrust enforcement against major tech firms,” according to Raymond James analysts.
Judge Amit Mehta’s decision, issued this week, represented what Raymond James described as a “favorable, and in our view, best-case scenario for Google,” as it stopped short of a structural breakup.
Instead, the ruling “prescribed behavioral remedies targeting Google’s control [of] general search and search text advertising without fundamentally changing Google’s core business.”
The court rejected the Department of Justice’s request to separate Google’s Chrome browser and Android operating system.
Instead, it banned exclusive distribution agreements across Search, Chrome, Google Assistant and Gemini AI, while requiring Google to share a “narrowly tailored subset of its search index and user interaction data with competitors.”
At the same time, Mehta rejected a blanket ban on payments to distributors, allowing Google to continue its $20 billion annual deal with Apple.
Raymond James highlighted the broader significance, stating that the ruling “underscores an evolution in U.S. antitrust policy, with the administration favoring pragmatic enforcement and targeted, behavioral remedies over broader, more aggressive structural breakups pursued by prior administrations.”
The decision is also said to set the tone for future cases. With Google facing an ad tech trial later this month, and other firms such as Amazon, Meta and Apple under scrutiny, Raymond James noted that “courts may be inclined to side with behavioral remedies… rather than a full overhaul” of business models.
Judge Mehta’s ruling, they added, “delivered lighter remedies… than some investors anticipated,” removing a major overhang for Google while shaping expectations for how U.S. regulators handle Big Tech in the AI era.
