Abstract
In September 2025, Judge Amit Mehta issued the long-awaited remedies opinion in the United States v. Google search case, in which he had previously held that Google illegally maintained its monopoly in general search services. At the heart of that monopoly were Google’s multi-billion-dollar payments to distributors—Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, and others—to lock in Google Search as the default on nearly every mobile device and across much of the desktop browser market. Yet despite identifying these payments as the central anticompetitive conduct, Judge Mehta declined to ban them. Concerned about windfall profits to Google, harm to channel partners, and consumer disruption, he allowed Google to continue paying for default placement subject only to minimal restrictions. The result, by the court’s own acknowledgment, is a remedy that may leave in place the very forces that have made the search ecosystem “exceptionally resistant to change.” Liability has been established, but the conduct that produced it can continue largely unchecked.