In Major Tech Case, Court Blinks on Breaking Up a US Champion

The final ruling in the U.S. government’s antitrust case against Google suggests a fundamental reluctance by the court to break up a company seen as a U.S. technology champion. Despite finding Google guilty of illegal monopolization, the judge rejected remedies that would have dismantled or significantly weakened the tech giant.
Google’s defense team argued that the government’s proposals would harm not just the company but also America’s position as a global leader in technology. Judge Amit Mehta’s decision appeared to be sensitive to this line of reasoning, as he described the requested sale of Chrome as an “overreach” that would cause harm to consumers and partners.
This outcome reflects a long-standing tension in U.S. antitrust policy: how to punish anti-competitive behavior without undermining the success of globally dominant domestic firms. The court ultimately chose a path that preserves Google’s structure, opting for behavioral tweaks rather than a corporate restructuring.
The decision is a setback for proponents of a more aggressive, trust-busting approach to Big Tech. It indicates that even with a strong legal case, the hurdle for securing a corporate breakup remains exceptionally high, especially for companies that are central to the U.S. tech economy.