A federal judge has forced a meaningful reshaping of how Google locks up the internet's front doors.
In a December ruling, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said Google may no longer sign multi‑year default search or AI app placement contracts that effectively freeze rivals out of billions of users. Instead, any agreement that names Google as the default — whether in a browser, on a phone, or inside an app that uses large language models — must terminate within one year of being entered. The order is part of the remedies following a 2024 finding that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly in search.
That one‑year limit does not ban Google from paying to be the default. It does, however, force annual renegotiation: device makers and app developers will have to rebid or re-evaluate which engine sits behind the search bar each year. For companies long used to predictable, multi‑year default deals, the change is seismic.
Why one year matters
Long default contracts have been a cornerstone of Google’s dominance. They lock in market share on billions of devices — particularly iPhones and Android handsets — and make it hard for newcomers to build scale. By requiring annual rebids, the court aims to create more frequent opportunities for emerging search and AI competitors to win distribution.
The remedy explicitly includes generative AI products — Judge Mehta said genAI “plays a significant role” in the remedies — so the ruling covers not only classic search engines but also AI assistants and browser integrations that use LLMs. That has direct implications for efforts by rivals to wedge into default spots, from new AI browsers to assistants bundled in apps.
Data sharing, source‑code access and a technical committee
The judge also detailed rules about the data and technical oversight that will enforce the remedy. Google must share certain raw search interaction data used to train ranking and AI systems with qualifying competitors; it will not have to hand over its ranking algorithms themselves. To determine exactly what gets shared, the court created a technical committee of experts.
Members of that committee must be versed in a mix of software engineering, information retrieval, AI, economics, behavioral science, and data privacy/security — and crucially, they must be free of conflicts of interest. The order bars anyone who worked for Google or a direct competitor in the six months before joining, and for one year after serving. The committee will have confidential access to portions of Google's source code and algorithms under strict nondisclosure rules.
Those provisions aim to strike a balance: give rivals the inputs needed to build competitive systems while protecting Google’s core intellectual property and user privacy. Still, handing outsiders access to internal signals and training data — even under confidentiality — is a delicate step that could reshape how search models are trained and evaluated across the industry.
What this means for Apple, Samsung and the device market
Apple and handset makers will face new dynamics. Historically, Google has paid Apple and others billions to be the default search provider in Safari and on devices. The one‑year cap preserves the ability to pay but removes the guarantee of long‑term exclusivity. Apple’s future defaults may become more fluid; device makers will periodically re‑assess which engine or assistant best suits their strategic goals.
For companies integrating Google’s models, there’s an awkward irony: while Apple has explored using custom Google Gemini models to power Siri, the judge’s order says Google cannot force partners to distribute its AI products, a constraint that changes leverage in negotiations. (See more on Apple and Gemini in our coverage of Apple’s plans.) Apple to use a custom Google Gemini model to power Next‑Gen Siri
A boost for AI challengers — and uncertainty for Google revenue
The ruling hands a potential advantage to fast movers in AI. Competitors such as OpenAI, Microsoft, and newer entrants building AI browsers or search experiences can now compete annually for coveted default placements. Some of those rivals are already pushing features that blend conversational AI and search; others are experimenting with browser‑level assistants and new UX paradigms.
At the same time, Google’s revenue stream from default deals — a substantial line item when aggregated across partners — could see more volatility. Annual renegotiations create recurring pressure points and make long‑term forecasting harder for both Google and its partners.
Practical effects and the road ahead
This remedy is part of a broader set of antitrust actions and follows a September decision that stopped short of forcing Google to divest Chrome but ordered looser control over search data. Google has signaled plans to appeal the underlying monopoly finding, and an appeal seems likely for these remedies too.
For users, the immediate changes might be subtle: defaults could shuffle more often, and some devices or apps may experiment with AI‑first search experiences. For developers and competitors, access to certain training data and a more level playing field for default spots could accelerate alternative search and assistant products — including deeper integrations of AI into email, docs and navigation tools where Gemini and other models are already making inroads. For context about Gemini’s wider role inside Google products, see our piece on how Gemini is moving into Workspace and deep document search. Gemini Deep Research plugging into Gmail and Drive
Meanwhile, Google continues to roll out AI features in its apps and browser on mobile — recent updates that add agentic booking and an AI mode in Chrome reflect how aggressively it’s pushing the product envelope even as the legal fight plays out. Google’s AI Mode and agentic booking in Chrome
This is not a tidy fix for a sprawling digital market. It’s a nudge — legally enforced — to make the front door of the internet less permanent and a little more contestable. How quickly rivals capitalize on that opening will determine whether the court’s one‑year clock becomes a true engine of competition or merely another administrative rhythm in the tech ecosystem.