OPINION | Google ruling in the US will have adverse implications in India and other developing countries

The Google judgement has set a negative precedent of Big Tech players evading consequences even if they are found to be violative

On 2 September 2025, in what has been described as the most consequential antitrust judgement involving the Big Tech after the case against Microsoft at the eve of the 21st century, US federal Judge Amit Mehta let Google evade some of the harshest consequences of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890.

The judgement will set a negative precedent as multiple similar cases against other Big Tech players such as Meta, Amazon and Apple are set to be decided in US courts in coming years. Justice Mehta’s judgement not just emboldens Google in its anti-competitive behavior, but may also end up bolstering the case of other Big Tech giants.

More competition among the tech players suits the interests of developing states including India. Strengthening of Big Tech monopolies only reduces the bargaining power of the developing states. President Donald Trump rallying behind the tech players in foreign jurisdiction and threatening tariffs against those who target US tech companies further disadvantages the developing states.

Decoding the judgement 

The case against Google was moved by the Department of Justice under the first Trump administration in 2020. In 2024, Judge Amit Mehta, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that ‘Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly’. This year, the US government proposed remedies such as forcing Google to sell its web browser Chrome, the New York Times reported. Given the strong language employed in the 2024 ruling, and the stance of the US government, it was expected by antitrust activists in the US and beyond that there would be serious consequences for Google. But the judgement by Justice Mehta on 2 September 2025 let off Google with only relatively minor consequences.

The ruling and its drawbacks

Essentially, there are three elements to the ruling. As the Department of Justice explains in its press release, the judgement ‘prohibited Google from from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app; ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals; and ordered Google to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete.’ The judge also noted the changing multi-billion dollar search market and expressed optimism that the introduction of AI platforms would lead to more competition.

But the judgement fell short on many counts. First, Google can still pay the likes of Apple and Samsung for the prime placement of its products. Second, Chrome and Android will continue to remain with Google — hence, no breakup of the monopoly. Third, Google is only required to share a limited portion of its search index data. The investors viewed the ruling as being favourable to the extent that the stocks of Google gained over 9 per cent a day after the ruling, enhancing the market cap of the company by over $230 billion.

What the judgement means for Big Tech and developing states

It was not a coincidence that the stocks of Apple, another Big Tech company that is both a rival and partner of Google jumped a day after the judgement as well. Apple added 130 billion dollars to its market cap in a single day. There are multiple antitrust cases against Big Tech players such as Apple, Meta and Amazon in the US courts and are expected to be decided in coming years. The Google judgement has set a negative precedent of Big Tech players evading consequences even if they are found to be violative of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The US courts taking a lenient view coupled with the US president Trump threatening other jurisdictions (especially the European Union) from targeting the US Big Tech companies are only set to embolden the latter.

It will not just be the consumers and small companies in the US that will suffer because of rising monopoly in the tech sector. From cloud services to social media and increasingly AI, developing states such as India have been dependent on a select few US Big Tech players. If the technology underlying these tech players was open in nature, there would have been no problem. But most of their products and services are proprietary in nature, and the next best alternative to open technologies is proprietary technologies in the hands of many (as opposed to a few monopolists). The strengthening of the monopoly behaviour of these tech players reduces the bargaining power and leverage that the developing states hold as they try to make extraterritorial players accountable to domestic rules and regulations. Trump threatening tariffs against jurisdictions that hold the Big Tech accountable doesn’t help the case of developing states either.

(Lokendra Sharma is a staff research analyst with the Takshashila Institution’s High-Tech Geopolitics Programme.)

Views are personal and do not represent this organisation.