A federal judge has added new restrictions to Google’s business practices as part of the ongoing Google search monopoly case. According to a ruling reported by Bloomberg, Google will now face a one-year limit on contracts that set its search and AI services as the default on smartphones, browsers, and other devices. The decision expands the remedies tied to the Justice Department’s antitrust victory and introduces a new layer of oversight for Google’s core search business.
Google search monopoly ruling adds strict new contract limits
Judge Amit Mehta issued the order on Friday. His decision means Google must renegotiate its default placement agreements every year instead of securing long-term deals. As a result, device makers and software companies will have more frequent opportunities to consider alternative search providers.
This update follows Mehta’s September ruling, which determined that Google had illegally protected its dominance in online search. However, the court also rejected the DOJ’s request to force Google to divest Chrome. Instead, the judge required Google to change specific practices that contributed to what regulators identified as a sustained Google search monopoly.
How the Google search monopoly ruling reshapes competition for defaults
The one-year cap is designed to reduce the lasting impact of default search deals. These agreements have played a major role in shaping market share, since most users tend to rely on whichever search engine is pre-selected on their devices.
Mehta’s order directly targets those arrangements. By shortening their duration, the ruling adds more friction to Google’s ability to preserve long-term defaults across the industry. It also increases opportunities for competing search companies to pitch new deals and challenge entrenched behavior.
Earlier Google monopoly ruling already restricted exclusive agreements
The court’s earlier decision laid much of the groundwork for these new measures. In September, Mehta found that Google maintained a Google search monopoly by paying companies, including Apple, to keep its search engine as the default option. The ruling also applied to agreements concerning Chrome, Search, and Gemini distribution.
As part of that decision, the judge banned exclusive contracts for these services. In addition, Google was ordered to provide certain search data to rivals. According to the ruling, data access is intended to “narrow the scale gap” created by Google’s dominant position.
These changes aim to loosen the structural advantages that helped Google hold its lead for years, especially in mobile search and browser-based search.
Regulators expand oversight under the Google search monopoly case
While the September ruling rejected the DOJ’s most aggressive remedy — forcing Google to sell Chrome — regulators argued that the company’s conduct justified strict oversight. Mehta agreed that Google’s competitive edge did not stem solely from product quality but from business practices that restricted choice.
The new one-year contract limit adds another layer of accountability. It ensures that Google cannot rely on multi-year deals to maintain dominance. Instead, each partnership must be renewed under closer scrutiny.
Impact of the Google search monopoly ruling on device makers
The ruling affects Google’s relationships with major industry players. Companies such as Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla have long relied on agreements with Google to set default search options. These contracts generate significant revenue for manufacturers and ensure high traffic volumes for Google.
Now, because of the Google search monopoly ruling, these entities will participate in more frequent negotiations. This shift could open the door for alternative search providers to compete for placement, although pricing and performance will continue to play central roles.
Moreover, annual renegotiations may encourage companies to evaluate their dependency on Google more actively. The ruling could prompt device makers to test new search partnerships or offer users broader choice screens.
Google search monopoly remedies reshape the company’s strategy
Google has not released new comments on the updated ruling. However, the company previously argued that its search agreements reflect user preference, not coercion. Google maintains that people choose its search engine because it performs better, not because it is set as the default.
Still, the court’s decision introduces meaningful changes to how Google manages search distribution. With shorter contracts and renewed regulatory pressure, Google must now operate under conditions that make its market position less automatic.
The ruling also signals that the DOJ’s case will continue to shape the search ecosystem for years. While Google does not face structural separation, it must adjust to an environment where defaults are less stable and competition has a clearer path forward.
Why the Google search monopoly ruling marks a turning point
Antitrust experts consider the ruling an important development. The one-year limit does not dismantle Google’s business model, but it disrupts long-standing advantages that helped reinforce the Google search monopoly. By forcing regular contract reviews and banning exclusive deals, the remedies aim to create a more dynamic and competitive environment.
This case also sets a significant precedent for how the U.S. handles digital market dominance. Regulators worldwide continue to monitor Google’s practices, and the DOJ’s victory adds weight to similar investigations in other regions.
For now, Google enters a new phase of compliance. It must navigate competitive negotiations more frequently while maintaining user trust in its search and AI tools.
Read also
Join the discussion in our Facebook community.