In a decision that will be studied for years, Judge Amit Mehta has made a significant gamble: he is betting that the future promise of artificial intelligence is a more effective check on Google’s power than a government-forced breakup. This forward-looking rationale was the intellectual core of his ruling sparing Google from divestiture.
Throughout his judgment, Mehta repeatedly referenced the “emergence of Gen AI” as a game-changing factor. He argued that as AI chatbots become more sophisticated, they will inherently compete with Google for user queries, thus eroding the very monopoly he had found to be illegal. This effectively allowed a future technology to mitigate the punishment for past behavior.
This approach is a departure from traditional antitrust remedies, which typically focus on correcting past harms through structural changes. Instead, the judge has opted for a lighter touch—mandating data sharing and ending exclusivity deals—believing these measures will be sufficient to hold the fort until AI-driven competition fully materializes.
Whether this gamble pays off remains to be seen. Critics argue the judge is relying on a speculative future to solve a concrete present-day problem, giving Google a pass. Supporters, however, see it as a pragmatic recognition that technology markets can self-correct in ways that blunt, structural remedies cannot anticipate.