Antitrust Remedies for Google Search Monopoly Spark Debate Among Tech Critics

In the wake of Judge Amit Mehta’s landmark ruling that Google illegally monopolized the search market, a fierce debate has emerged about what remedies would effectively curb the tech giant’s dominance. The August decision, which found Google guilty of maintaining its search monopoly through exclusive distribution agreements, has set the stage for a consequential battle over potential solutions that could reshape the digital landscape.

The Department of Justice and state attorneys general have until November 20th to propose remedies, with Google’s response due by January 10th. While Judge Mehta has scheduled a remedies hearing for April 2025, the discussion among tech critics and industry experts has already intensified about what measures would meaningfully address Google’s market control.

Structural Separation Emerges as Bold but Controversial Remedy

Some of the most vocal critics are advocating for structural separation—a dramatic remedy that would force Google to divest parts of its business. Luther Lowe, senior vice president at Yelp and longtime Google critic, told The Verge that “structural separation is the only remedy that can restore competition.” Lowe specifically suggested that Google should be forced to divest either its Android operating system or Chrome browser, arguing that controlling these access points has given Google unfair advantages.

The Open Markets Institute has gone further, recommending that Google be required to sell off both Android and Chrome. The organization’s research director, Daniel Hanley, emphasized to The Verge that “Google’s control over these key access points to the internet” has been instrumental in maintaining its search dominance, making divestiture necessary to restore competition.

Behavioral Remedies Face Skepticism from Competition Advocates

While structural remedies would fundamentally alter Google’s business model, behavioral remedies—which impose restrictions on Google’s conduct without breaking up the company—have gained traction as potentially more practical solutions. However, many competition advocates remain skeptical about their effectiveness.

Charlotte Slaiman, competition policy director at Public Knowledge, expressed concerns about behavioral remedies to The Verge, noting that they “require ongoing monitoring and enforcement” and can be difficult to implement effectively. The challenge lies in crafting restrictions that meaningfully open the market to competitors while being specific enough to prevent Google from finding workarounds.

Search Choice Screens and Algorithm Transparency Draw Mixed Reactions

One behavioral remedy under consideration is mandatory “choice screens” that would prompt users to select their default search engine. Similar measures have been implemented in Europe following the European Commission’s antitrust actions against Google. However, critics like Yelp’s Lowe argue that such interventions have proven “wholly ineffective” in European markets.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has proposed requiring Google to provide competitors access to its search index or mandating data sharing. The organization’s legal director, Corynne McSherry, told The Verge that transparency requirements for Google’s ranking algorithms could also help level the playing field, though such measures would need to be carefully balanced against legitimate intellectual property concerns.

Legal Experts Caution Against Overreach While Seeking Effective Solutions

As the remedies phase approaches, legal experts caution that any solution must address the specific anticompetitive conduct identified in Judge Mehta’s ruling. The court found that Google’s exclusive agreements with mobile device manufacturers and browsers were the primary mechanisms for maintaining its monopoly.

Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, emphasized to The Verge that remedies should focus on these distribution agreements rather than attempting broader restructuring of the company. “The remedy needs to be tailored to the violation,” Hovenkamp noted, suggesting that prohibiting exclusive agreements might be more legally defensible than forced divestitures.

As the April 2025 remedies hearing approaches, the debate underscores the complex challenge of designing interventions that effectively restore competition in the digital age without unintended consequences for innovation and consumer experience.