This essay first ran in Friday’s edition of our paid newsletter. We’re making it free here as a preview of the analysis subscribers receive every week. To get all of our deep dives—on law, finance, tech, and politics—delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe here.

---

You know that feeling when your buddy barely escapes a speeding ticket? He was driving 90 in a 65, a cop pulled him over, and you thought the car would get impounded . . . but then the cop lets him off with a warning. 

That was basically Google this week.

The judge said “Google, you broke antitrust law”, but when it came to punishment? Some harsh words, no fines, and no license suspension. Just as I predicted in this videoand essay from a year ago. 

Now Google gets to keep driving. But this time with Apple riding shotgun and AI in the driver’s seat. 

It is the biggest antitrust decision in decades, setting a precedent for similar cases against Meta, Amazon, and Apple. And while the Department of Justice may act like they won, they really didn’t. Almost all of the harshest remedies they proposed — like breaking up Google — were rejected. 

What this means for other big tech companies, startups, and the growing AI ecosystem is far from certain. But it gives some hints to where we might be driving, legally speaking, and how AI will get us there. 

We now know Google’s antitrust fate 

No breakup. No consent decree like Microsoft in the 2000s. Instead, narrow restrictions that ban exclusivity deals and require data sharing, but overall — this is a huge win for Google. 

While some may argue that this litigation experience may chill Google’s aggressiveness in the coming years, it should be nothing like what happened to Microsoft in the 2000s. The latter was required to enter into a consent decree, which as I previously described, was arguably worse than a forced breakup. It came at a time when mobile devices and social media were opening new markets, and a hamstrung Microsoft lost out on both. 

Google escaped this consent decree (not to mention, break up) fate. Despite the DOJ pushing for extremes, Judge Amit Mehta described his job perfectly — how courts should approach remedies with a “healthy dose of humility”, especially when facing rapidly evolving technologies like generative artificial intelligence. 

Perhaps the biggest news of all was Google keeping its lucrative Apple deal. It pays Apple more than $20 billion per year to be the default search engine on Safari (a huge traffic source for Google). 

The major caveat is that Google cannot enter into exclusivity agreements with Apple or anyone else (browsers, cellphone or laptop manufacturers, etc.). Basically, Google cannot be the only search option and consumers must be allowed to change their default settings. 

Judge Mehta also exercised humility when forcing Google to share data. Google will need to share parts of its search index with competitors, but it isn’t required to share other data related to those results (e.g., the quality of web pages). 

The reason for so much humility? Artificial intelligence. The judge emphasized Google’s new reality; how much harder it must fight to keep up with competitors who are seizing search queries that Google previously monopolized across smartphones and browsers.

Google can no longer use its financial clout like it did when it was the 900 pound gorilla of search. It’s amazing how much can change between the filing of an antitrust case and adjudication (generative AI didn’t even exist!). 

But now Google is free to drive with AI controlling GPS and the wheel. And following this ruling, Google is not only free to defend its core franchise, it can also deepen its partnerships. 

Why not license its Gemini product to Apple too? As the latter struggles to compete in AI, it could be the perfect match for the iPhone ecosystem, mirroring the existing search deal structure, but this time with AI at the center. 

Unlike Microsoft from two decades ago, Google has not lost any competitive edge from antitrust litigation. It may have a few new restrictions on its activities, but it has not lost any meaningful room to innovate in AI or strike new deals that could reshape a burgeoning industry. 

And that’s good for more than just Google. Apple could stand to make billions from products like Gemini, unless they partner with Perplexity instead (whom they were reportedly in talks with) or someone can create the future AI-powered device. 

Regardless, keeping Google in the game with few restrictions gives consumers more optionality. The tech industry also avoids the chilling effect a consent decree or break up could have had not only on Google, but the industry at large.

Why Meta, Amazon, and Apple are quietly celebrating 

Nobody at Meta, Amazon, or Apple would likely admit this. Or dare say it out loud. But Judge Mehta handed them a shield and roadmap for surviving their own antitrust battles.

All three are currently facing heavy antitrust scrutiny:

• Meta faces an FTC lawsuit over its alleged social media monopoly through acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. As in the Google case, regulators want to force divestitures (forced sales of Instagram and/or WhatsApp).
• Amazon is battling the FTC over its marketplace where it’s accused of squeezing independent sellers with its own products and anti-discount policies. This may be the strongest of the government’s antitrust cases because as I wrote years ago, Amazon has done some shady stuff. The FTC has hinted at remedies that include structural changes and bans on key business practices.
• Apple was sued by the DOJ for allegedly monopolizing the smartphone ecosystem. This included how Apple operates the App Store, controls iOS, and restricts features like iMessage and Apple Wallet.

These big tech firms were waiting on pins and needles for the announcement of remedies in the Google case. They had reason to fear remedies as harsh as Microsoft’s consent decree or even a forced break up given the language in Judge Mehta’s previous holding against Google. 

But as the remedies reveal — just because you lose the case doesn’t mean you’ll lose in the penalties phase. Judge Mehta’s remedies for Google changes the temperature for all of these big tech firms. 

The message is clear. Unless the government uncovers smoking gun evidence of deliberate anticompetitive intent — the kind of internal emails and memos that doomed Microsoft in the late 1990s (“cut off Netscape’s air supply”) — judges are reluctant to impose the most extreme remedies. Courts want narrow, targeted fixes that minimize unnecessary disruption. And the remedies should be directly tied to the anticompetitive conduct (which is why Judge Mehta focused so heavily on exclusivity agreements). 

This light touch approach will shape the future legal battlefield. Absent direct evidence of anticompetitive intent, the upcoming wave of antitrust cases likely won’t result in structural surgery (e.g., forcing Meta to sell Instagram). It will likely lead to behavioral restrictions. Cosmetic changes, not amputations. 

What the ruling means for startups and AI rivals

For the next generation of Googles, the ruling is a mixed bag. Google itself was a big beneficiary of Microsoft being hamstrung throughout much of the early 2000s. They seized the opportunity with mobile in particular by marketing their Android operating system. 

The future Googles of the world won’t enjoy this luxury. But it’s more opportunity than setback.

While Google may be able to keep in place lucrative placement deals like its $20 billion arrangement with Apple, it can’t prevent newcomers like Perplexity from making better products and offers. Google’s market power may be daunting, but if history is any indicator, the new upstarts are often the key drivers of emerging industries. 

Nobody expected Google to dominate search the way it did. Perhaps a firm like Perplexity will be the new Google of AI for mobile. 

Startups will benefit from Judge Mehta’s order drawing a clear line — Google’s deals cannot be exclusive. This nuance matters. Google’s competitive moat just got a little weaker, even if it still enjoys the benefits of being an entrenched incumbent. But the old lockouts are gone, which in turn lowers barriers to entry. 

Another quiet win for startups is what this ruling could signal for mergers and acquisitions. The days of Lina Khan’s FTC have faded into the rearview. Less aggressive antitrust enforcement from the judiciary could mean that courts become reluctant to impose structural remedies. We may see more tolerance for procompetitiveacquisitions. 

This could be huge for smaller AI companies. They might find it easier to sell to a larger platform if the deal can be framed as expanding consumer choice rather than killing a rival. During the Lina Khan era, these types of mergers and acquisitions received a blanket “no.” That harsh approach may be ebbing, at least in the courts. 

Google still remains very powerful. But the fact it can no longer lock the door behind them is a benefit to all startups, especially those competing in the new AI frontier. And the fact Google is limited on exclusivity not only with Apple, but with their software offerings to mobile device makers, means that startups have a fighting chance. They have a more compelling case, if only to help partners hedge against being too dependent on Google. 

The road ahead: appeals, AI, and the future of tech antitrust

Despite dodging a bullet on the harshest remedies, an appeal from Google is almost certain. It will likely challenge Judge Mehta’s underlying finding of monopolization, and the DOJ could appeal the scope of the remedies. 

But here’s what I think will really happen. Google knows it got off easy with the speeding ticket equivalent of a warning. The harshest remedies (break ups, divestitures, consent decrees) are off the table for now. 

Across the table, the DOJ can technically claim victory. But it’s the kind of victory that makes you wonder if they lost, so they may be content to move on and take the small win. 

This is why I doubt litigation will draw out for too long. It’s in neither party’s long term interests. Especially as America is trying to compete with the likes of China in the AI race. The current administration knows that it needs as much tech firepower as it can muster. 

Google can now double down on Gemini, strike new licensing deals, and leverage its immense capital to close the gap with OpenAI, Anthropic, and the other competitors. With billions still flowing into research and cloud infrastructure, Google’s biggest challenge won’t be the courtroom but keeping pace with innovation.

For antitrust spectators, the bigger takeaway is philosophical. The courts just made clear they will mostly stay out of the way in tech because of AI. Unless the government has a “smoking gun” — the kind of damning intent evidence seen in the Microsoft 2000s case — harsh remedies are unlikely. 

So where does that leave us? Google is still in the driver’s seat, with Apple riding shotgun (for now) and AI behind the wheel. The government may have issued a warning for aggressive driving, but the Google car is still on the road.

The road ahead looks smoother for tech companies, with less barriers and potholes. Regulators may not be patrolling like they were five years ago. But they still better keep their eyes on the road. 

The next turn in AI could come faster than anyone expects.