Faced with a convicted monopolist, Judge Amit Mehta had a choice: neuter the giant by breaking it apart, or try to nurture a field of smaller rivals to challenge it. He chose the latter, and his decision reflects a modern approach to antitrust that prioritizes fostering competition over simply punishing dominance.
The traditional trust-busting approach, favored by the DOJ, was to neuter Google by forcing the sale of its Chrome browser. This would have fundamentally weakened the company’s integrated power. The judge rejected this as too disruptive and potentially harmful to consumers.
Instead, he opted to nurture competitors. The centerpiece of this strategy is the data-sharing mandate. By giving rivals access to Google’s data, he aims to provide them with the essential nutrients they need to grow stronger and develop more sophisticated products. The ban on exclusivity and app bundling is also designed to clear space for these smaller players to find sunlight.
This approach is a form of judicial industrial policy for the tech sector. It is less about tearing down the leader and more about trying to build up the challengers. It’s a complex, long-term experiment, and its success will depend on whether the nurtured rivals can one day stand on their own.