New Ruling Restricts Long-Term Default Search Agreements
A federal Judge, Amit Mehta, has dealt a significant blow to Google’s long-standing dominance in search distribution, ordering that any contract naming Google’s search engine or AI app as the default on smartphones and other devices must now be renegotiated every year.
Under the new ruling, any agreement that designates Google Search, or its AI-powered services, as the default choice on smartphones, tablets, or browsers can no longer be locked in for a period of multiple years. Instead, such deals must be renewed annually, allowing device makers and other platform operators to reconsider and potentially choose rivals.
Based in Washington, Judge Mehta had earlier consulted the US Justice Department on this ruling before implementing the decision. After careful consideration, the department agreed to conduct this annual review. Notably, this is a primary change that the search giant is required to embrace among other suggested changes.
The judge arrived at this decision after it was confirmed that the tech firm illegally controlled online search.
Ruling Opens Doors for AI Competitors
Following Judge Mehta’s recent decision, the tech industry expressed excitement about a potential positive change in the ecosystem. This is because the yearly renegotiation will grant rivals, particularly those in the expanding generative AI market, the opportunity to compete for crucial positions.
Interestingly, the judge’s final decision has not interfered with Google’s operations. Sources close to the situation mentioned that the tech giant is still allowed to offer its products to Apple Inc., which are useful in the firm’s popular iPhone. It is still permitted to pay other electronics firms, such as Samsung Electronics Co., for default placement.
However, even with this freedom in place, Mehta still insisted that these contracts needed to be renewed annually. The federal judge issued this reminder after noting that both Google and the US government had demonstrated their ability to comply with the one-year restriction on default contracts.
Therefore, this situation prompted him to conclude that “the court holds that a strict termination requirement after one year would best serve the purpose of the injunctive relief.”
The ruling triggered heated debates among individuals. Considering the intense nature of the situation, reporters attempted to reach out to Google and the Justice Department for comments on the topic under discussion to ease this controversy. Nonetheless, they declined to respond.
On the other hand, several analysts weighed in on the matter. They acknowledged that Google’s case was a lengthy legal battle. To support this claim, reports highlighted that Mehta ruled that the tech giant was guilty of illegally monopolizing online search and search advertising markets in August 2024, following a 10-week trial.
Afterwards, he held a second trial in spring 2025, purposefully to examine the Justice Department’s request for the tech company to sell off its popular web browser, Chrome.
Google Plans to Appeal Initial Ruling
Regarding the Justice Department’s request, sources with knowledge of the situation mentioned that Mehta rejected that request for Google to sell off its popular web browser, Chrome.
He argued that the best approach to this case was for the search giant to share specific data connected to its search results with rivals. The federal judge arrived at this decision in September 2025.
This ruling provided more details on earlier released reports regarding when the tech firm is required to share its data and to whom it must share the information.
Meanwhile, according to Mehta’s September ruling, Google was not allowed to pay firms to use its Search, Chrome web browser, or Google Play Store exclusively. However, he did not decide to prohibit all payments.
Additionally, it is worth noting that this ruling incorporated parts of suggestions from both Google and the Justice Department, which led the judge to consider issuing a second ruling to clarify certain technical terms from the initial decision.
Although Google promised to adhere to the judge’s decision, it made clear its intention to appeal Mehta’s original ruling, which implied that its contracts with firms such as Apple and Samsung, under which its search engine is set as the default, break US antitrust laws.
After this announcement was made public, analysts noted that there is a high likelihood that the Justice Department may also think about appealing Mehta’s remedy decision.