Digiday’s definitive list for what’s in and out after Google’s antitrust search remedies ruling

By Digiday Editors • September 5, 2025 •

Earlier this week, Judge Amit Mehta issued his long-awaited remedies ruling in the Department of Justice’s search antitrust case against Google, stopping short of a forced sale of key assets, such as Android and Chrome.

While the ruling does impose new guardrails on how Google can wield its dominance, it’s fair to say it was a ruling met with disappointment from many in the advertising and media ecosystem, given that it largely preserves the status quo.

What the remedies ruling did underline was how generative AI, or “GenAI,” as Mehta termed it in his ruling has changed — or should that be is changing… — the industry at an unprecedented rate. However, for anyone trying to keep track of what exactly made it into the final judgment, and how things will be going forward, below is a list of the key takeaways.

What’s In

End of exclusivity deals: Google is barred from tying Search, Chrome, Assistant, or Gemini to Play Store licensing or revenue-share terms.
Freedom for partners: OEMs, carriers, and browsers can distribute rivals alongside Google apps.
Payments preserved: Google can still pay for defaults and preloads, though not in ways that enforce exclusivity.

Data access for rivals: Qualified competitors gain some access to Google’s search index and user-interaction data.
Syndication bridge: Rivals are entitled to Google search and text-ads syndication on standard commercial terms.
Auction transparency: Google must disclose major ad auction changes to limit hidden cost hikes.
Technical Committee oversight: A five-member panel with expertise in AI, economics, and privacy will monitor compliance.
Committee remit: Tasks include vetting competitors, setting data safeguards, auditing syndication, and reviewing auction disclosures.

Six-year term: Remedies will run for six years, longer than Google wanted but shorter than the plaintiffs pushed for.
GenAI guardrails: Court-designed remedies aim to prevent Google’s search power from spilling into Gemini or other GenAI products.

What’s Out

No Chrome/Android breakup: Plaintiffs’ push to divest core platforms was rejected.
No choice screens: Users will not be prompted to pick a search engine on Google devices.
No advertiser boosts: No extra query-level reporting or revival of “exact match” bidding.
No publisher rights: No new say for website owners over how Google uses their content.
No public education campaign: Plaintiffs’ request for a nationwide outreach push was denied.
No investment reporting: Google won’t face new disclosure requirements on spending or deals.
No anti-retaliation rules: The court found proposed protections too vague to enforce.
No self-preferencing ban: Judges rejected blanket restrictions on how Google prioritizes its own services.
No broad GenAI limits: The court declined to hobble Google’s ability to compete in AI; only exclusivity bans apply.
No short leash: Google sought a three-year term; the court imposed six, but not the 10 years plaintiffs asked.

So, who wins, and who loses?

Google: The biggest winner (again). Avoids breakup, keeps payments, Chrome/Android, and product design freedom, plus its “GENAI has changed everything” defense was heavily emphasized in the ruling.

Device makers/partners: Benefit from fewer restrictions while still receiving Google’s money.

Rival search/GenAI firms: Gain modestly from data access and syndication, but still far from equal footing.

Advertisers: Depends on whom you ask — some transparency gains but no deeper data rights.

Publishers: Clear losers (again). No new leverage or protections.

Regulators: Again, it depends on whom you ask. The DOJ secured oversight but fell short on structural and broader behavioral remedies, with many interpreting this as Pyrrhic victory.

The remedies phase of the separate ad tech antitrust case set to kick off on Sept. 22 – where the online giant was also lost the case to the DOJ – Google’s struggles with the U.S. Government are not over.