Five years ago, the United States government set its sights on one of the world’s most powerful tech companies: Google. The question at the heart of the antitrust lawsuit was straightforward but monumental—did Google hold an illegal monopoly over internet search? Fast forward to September 2025, and the answer from the federal courts is yes, but the story has become even more complicated, with the future of artificial intelligence (AI) now looming large over the debate.
Federal district court judge Amit Mehta’s recent ruling tried to walk a fine line. On one hand, he rebuked Google for its iron grip on the search market. On the other, he avoided imposing penalties so harsh that they’d cripple Google’s ability to compete in the rapidly evolving field of generative AI. As Judge Mehta himself noted, “the court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future. Not exactly a judge’s forte.” According to NPR, this candid admission highlights the unprecedented challenge facing the judiciary: how do you regulate a company whose dominance in search could translate into AI supremacy, all while the technology itself is changing at breakneck speed?
The Department of Justice had hoped for sweeping remedies. Prosecutors wanted Google to be stripped of its prized Chrome browser and to be banned from making exclusive deals with device manufacturers that set Google as the default search engine. Yet, the court’s decision fell short of these demands. Google will keep Chrome, and while it cannot ink exclusive distribution deals for its search engine, it can still strike financial agreements—as long as they aren’t exclusive. Perhaps most significantly, Google must share some of its valuable search data with competitors, though the specifics of this data-sharing arrangement remain to be determined.
To ensure compliance, Judge Mehta has appointed a technical committee to monitor Google over the next several years. But what real teeth does this oversight have? As Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor and former Biden administration tech advisor, put it: “Is this like a parole officer who Google has to check in with every, you know, month or so? Or is the court sort of done with it?” Wu’s skepticism, echoed by other experts, underscores a central worry—that the remedies may not be tough enough to rein in Google’s power, especially as the company pivots toward AI.
Alissa Cooper, executive director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, was blunt in her assessment. “I think when you look at the package of the remedies all together, they ring hollow,” she told NPR. “It doesn’t really propose very significant interventions of any kind.” Cooper pointed out that chatbots—like Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity—are now nipping at the heels of traditional search engines. As more people turn to these AI-powered tools for answers, the battle for dominance is shifting. Yet, Judge Mehta seemed to treat AI as a new playing field, one with its own future winners and losers. Cooper suggested that the judge’s approach boils down to trusting the market: “We should trust that the competition that emerges from these new players will take care of the problem that led to bringing this case in the first place.”
But is that trust well placed? The heart of the concern is that Google’s vast trove of search data, its reach, computing power, and deep pockets give it a built-in advantage in the AI arms race. Tom Wheeler, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, highlighted the limitations of using century-old laws to police the digital giants of today. “You’ve got to feel for Judge Mehta because he was trying to apply a law written in 1890 to what’s going on today in artificial intelligence,” Wheeler said. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, he argued, is simply not equipped to regulate the fast-evolving AI marketplace. “The reality is that Google controls all of those,” Wheeler observed, referring to the key ingredients for winning in AI: data, reach, computing power, and money.
In court this spring, Google’s attorneys countered that the company is not the top dog in AI. They pointed to OpenAI’s ChatGPT as the leader in the field, with Google’s Gemini merely a competitor. Google, they argued, only provides brief AI-generated answers to some search queries, suggesting its influence in AI is far from overwhelming. Still, critics aren’t convinced. The fear is that Google could leverage the same tactics it used to dominate search—locking up distribution deals, harnessing user data, and outspending rivals—to extend its dominance into AI.
The court’s ruling tries to anticipate this possibility. By barring exclusive distribution deals not just for search, but also for AI chatbots (sometimes called “answer engines”), Judge Mehta aimed to prevent Google from simply transferring its old playbook to a new arena. Yet, as Wu pointed out, it’s unclear whether this will be enough. “The question is, as far as I’m concerned, does Google get to use the same techniques that it used to win and dominate search—old search—for AI?” he asked.
For now, the legal battle is far from over. Google has signaled its intention to appeal both the penalties and the underlying verdict that it holds a monopoly in search. According to Tom Wheeler, the case is likely to wind up before the Supreme Court, probably in 2027 or 2028—seven or eight years after the original lawsuit was filed. “This case will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court, probably in the 2027, 2028 timeframe, which is seven or eight years after it was filed—and a millennium in terms of innovation and development,” Wheeler remarked.
In the meantime, the tech world isn’t standing still. AI chatbots are becoming ever more sophisticated, and the market for digital answers is growing more crowded by the day. As Google, OpenAI, and others race to define the future of information access, the outcome of this antitrust saga will shape not just who wins in search or AI, but how we all find answers in a world awash with data.
With the stakes this high, and the pace of change so dizzying, it’s little wonder that the courts—and the rest of us—are struggling to keep up.