Judge caps Google’s default search deals to one year in major antitrust move

A federal judge has ordered Google to limit its contracts that make its search and AI services the default option on smartphones, browsers, and other devices to a maximum of one year, marking a significant escalation in the US government’s antitrust case against the tech giant.

The ruling, delivered by Judge Amit Mehta, expands the remedies sought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) after the court found that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in online search. The judge said the new restriction will force Google to renegotiate its default placement contracts annually, preventing long-term, exclusive agreements that locked out competitors.

The court found that Google strengthened its dominance by paying device makers and app developers most notably Apple to set Google Search as the default option. These exclusive agreements made it difficult for rival search engines and AI services to gain visibility, even if users could technically switch services.

The one-year limit was imposed to break Google’s long-term control over distribution channels and create a more competitive market environment.

The ruling takes immediate effect and will apply to all future and renewed contracts, requiring Google to revisit and renegotiate agreements every year. The court has not set a final end date, meaning the measure could stay in place until the court determines that competition has been restored.

The primary beneficiaries are Google’s competitors, including smaller and emerging search and AI companies that will now have regular opportunities to compete for default placement deals.

Consumers are also expected to benefit through more choices, better innovation, and improved privacy options, as rival services gain fairer access to devices and platforms.

Although the court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to force Google to sell its Chrome browser, the company must now:

• End exclusive default agreements

• Limit contracts to one-year terms

• Share portions of its search data with rivals to reduce the market advantage built over the years

Google has said it disagrees with parts of the ruling and is reviewing its legal options, including a possible appeal.