Nearly a year after holding Google guilty of monopolising internet search and advertising, a U.S. federal judge on Sept. 2 granted the tech giant relief in its long-running antitrust battle with the government. The ruling by district judge Amit Mehta eased the Justice Department's earlier directive to sell Chrome to a third party.
The ruling has irked a few industry insiders who are of the opinion that the measures don't do much to curb Google's dominance or re-establish genuine competition.
Among them is Gabriel Weinberg, CEO of DuckDuckGo, the search engine with a focus on privacy that markets itself as a competitor to Google. Weinberg said the remedies don't touch the essence of Google's monopoly.
"We do not believe the remedies ordered by the court will force the changes necessary to adequately address Google's illegal behaviour," he said.
"Google will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search. As a result, consumers will continue to suffer. We believe Congress should now step in to swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field."
Here's Gabriel Weinberg's Statement As Shared By DuckDuckGo:
A statement from our CEO on the US v Google remedies:
September 2, 2025
"We do not believe the remedies ordered by the court will force the changes necessary to adequately address Google's illegal behavior. Google will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors,…DuckDuckGo's business model is centred on offering users private and untracked searches. Weinberg's remarks highlight the concerns of smaller search providers, who argue that Google's dominance prevents fair competition, especially as new technologies like artificial intelligence reshape the market.
In August 2024, district judge Mehta stated that Google had illegally used its dominance to preserve its market share, flouting Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The Sept. 2 decision fell short of the greater penalties asked for by the Department of Justice, which had claimed that Google must be dismembered and required to spin off its products, such as Chrome and Android. Instead, it stopped Google from offering exclusive agreements, but permitted it to maintain arrangements like paying Apple to be the default browser on Safari, and it decreed that Chrome could remain under Google's ownership.
While Google avoided the harshest penalties in the antitrust case, the company continues to push back against being labelled a monopolist and has raised concerns over the court's remedies. In its response, Google noted that “the court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share search data with rivals.” The company added that it is “reviewing the decision closely” and said it worries that such measures could affect “our users and their privacy.”
Watch LIVE TV, Get Stock Market Updates, Top Business, IPO and Latest News on NDTV Profit.
