The DOJ and multiple states have filed notices to appeal a federal court ruling in the Google Search antitrust case that imposed limited restrictions on the internet giant’s conquest of the search and AI market. The verdict was so friendly to Google that one analyst called it “a home run for the status quo.”
Bloomberg reports that the DOJ and a coalition of states announced Tuesday they will appeal a September 2025 federal court decision that is widely considered to be the best case scenario for Big Tech following a landmark antitrust case. The appeal targets a ruling by US District Judge Amit Mehta that allowed the tech giant to avoid major structural changes despite being found guilty of operating an illegal monopoly in the search market.
The case represents one of the most significant government antitrust actions against a technology company in recent decades. The federal government and 38 states and territories originally filed separate but related antitrust complaints against Google in 2020 during the first Trump administration. The state coalition pursued a broader range of claims than the federal case, though both matters proceeded to trial simultaneously in 2023.
Judge Mehta delivered a pivotal ruling in August 2024, determining that Google had illegally monopolized the search market through exclusive contracts with major smartphone manufacturers. The judge found that deals with companies including Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. violated antitrust law by requiring Google’s search engine to serve as the default option on their devices. These agreements, for which Google paid more than 20 billion dollars annually, effectively prevented competing search engines from accessing crucial distribution channels.
Following the liability determination, a second trial was held in 2025 to establish appropriate remedies for Google’s anticompetitive conduct. The Justice Department had requested severe measures, including forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser. However, Judge Mehta’s September 2025 remedy ruling fell far short of these demands. In fact, Google was not forced to make any meaningful structural changes based on the verdict.
The final ruling permitted Google to continue paying device manufacturers to maintain its search engine and AI applications as default options. The primary restriction imposed by the court was a requirement that such contracts be rebid annually, theoretically providing rival search engines with more frequent opportunities to compete for default placement on smartphones and other devices.
The decision was widely interpreted as a favorable outcome for Google. Analysts at MoffettNathanson characterized the ruling in a research note as “a home run for the status quo,” noting that existing market conditions have been “very favorable to both Google and Apple.” Legal experts similarly described the remedy as essentially a slap on the wrist for the technology giant, given the severity of the monopolization finding.
The appeal notices filed by the Justice Department and state attorneys general will move the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which handles numerous appeals involving federal government actions. According to statistics compiled by the U.S. Courts, the DC Circuit typically requires approximately one year from the filing of an appeal notice to issue a decision. This timeline suggests the appellate court will likely hear arguments in the case sometime later in 2026.
The government plaintiffs are seeking stronger remedies that would more effectively restore competition to the search engine market. Their dissatisfaction with Judge Mehta’s remedy ruling stems from their belief that the modest restrictions imposed will do little to diminish Google’s overwhelming market dominance or create meaningful opportunities for competing search platforms.
Read more at Bloomberg here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
