A Stunning Rebuke: Court Finds Government “Overreached” in Google Breakup Bid

In a stunning rebuke to the Department of Justice, a federal judge has ruled that the government “overreached” in its ambitious attempt to break up Google. This sharp language from the court underscores the magnitude of the DOJ’s defeat in the remedies phase of the most significant antitrust case in a generation.
Judge Amit Mehta’s decision not to force the sale of Google’s Chrome browser or other assets was framed as a rejection of an excessive and poorly justified proposal. The judge wrote that the government was seeking “forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints,” a direct blow to the DOJ’s legal theory.
This characterization of the government’s efforts as an “overreach” is a major victory for Google’s legal team, which had consistently argued that the DOJ’s demands were disproportionate to the harms alleged. It suggests the court found the government’s case for a structural remedy to be unconvincing and potentially punitive.
The ruling will likely force a period of introspection at the DOJ and other regulatory agencies. It serves as a powerful reminder that winning a monopoly finding is only half the battle; convincing a court to dismantle a company requires an exceptionally high and specific standard of proof that the government failed to meet in this case.