Litigation Update: Tuesday's Google Search Remedy Decision

One year ago, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta held that “Google is a monopolist and has acted as one to maintain its monopoly”, and, in doing so, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Judge Mehta’s remedy decision rejected the United States’ request for structural relief and indicated only limited conduct and behavioral requirements were appropriate to address any past effect of Google’s conduct and to protect competition going forward. Does either party have substantive grounds to expect an appellate court to reverse Judge Mehta’s liability and remedy decision? Is the remedy decision consistent with the liability decision (and vice-versa)? What are the next steps to implementing the remedy decision? What is the likely impact of Judge Mehta’s liability and remedy decisions on Google, monopolization law, and the Government’s anti-monopoly agenda. Please join our body of expert lawyers for a discussion of these and other related questions.

Featuring:

• Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
• Ashley Baker, Executive Director, The Committee for Justice
• Kathleen W. Bradish, Vice President and Director of Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust Institute
• Derek W. Moore, Counsel, Rule Garza Howley LLP
• (Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

*******

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.