Google Faces One-Year Limit on Default Search Deals

A federal court has issued a final set of remedies in the long-running antitrust case against Google, placing new constraints on how the company secures its position in search and generative AI markets. The decision marks a significant shift in the way Google must operate after the court found the company held an unlawful monopoly in online search and search advertising.

The order arrived after a series of rulings that reshaped the limits of what regulators could impose. In 2024, Judge Amit Mehta determined that Google’s practices violated antitrust law. A later stage in September rejected the most aggressive proposals, such as the forced sale of the Chrome browser, but established that the company would need to change its treatment of search data and contractual arrangements. The final judgment issued this December adds further detail to those obligations.

One-Year Contract Ceiling for Search and AI Agreements

Under the new rules, Google must ensure that any default search or AI-related agreement expires within a year of being signed. These limits apply to arrangements that place Google as the preset search engine on devices, as well as contracts covering generative AI products or tools built on large language models. Judge Mehta wrote that the one-year expiration requirement serves as a firm boundary that prevents long-term exclusivity from shaping the market.

Google historically paid substantial sums for default placement. Payments to companies such as Apple and Mozilla once exceeded $26 billion in a single year, and agreements tended to extend over longer periods. The new restrictions require Google to renegotiate every default arrangement annually, narrowing its ability to maintain entrenched partnerships. Regulators expect that the shorter duration will give emerging competitors, including AI-driven browsers and search tools, more opportunities to secure positions that were once held for extended stretches.

The ruling also confirms earlier requirements for Google to expand access to search interaction and index data. Google must share certain datasets that help inform ranking systems and AI models, although it is not required to disclose its algorithms. The court determined that broader access to foundational data could help competing firms strengthen their technology and improve the quality of alternative search products.

Technical Oversight and Ongoing Legal Pressure

Judge Mehta established conditions for an independent technical committee that will oversee how Google complies with these obligations. He outlined the required expertise for committee members, emphasizing fields such as software engineering, information retrieval, economics, artificial intelligence, behavioral science, data privacy, and data security. Members cannot have worked for Google or a rival within six months before serving, and the group will receive access to Google’s source code and algorithms under confidentiality protections. In explaining the level of detail needed in the remedies, Mehta wrote, “The age-old saying ‘the devil is in the details’ may not have been devised with the drafting of an antitrust remedies judgment in mind, but it sure does fit.”

Earlier this year, Google commented on the broader implications of the required data sharing. Lee-Anne Mullholland, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, stated: “Now the court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share search data with rivals. We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we’re reviewing the decision closely.”

Google continues to face scrutiny in other areas as well. A separate antitrust trial concluded in April with a finding that the company held an illegal monopoly in advertising technology when it tied together two of its ad tools. In that case, another federal judge is still determining what remedies would restore competition. The combined pressure from the search and adtech rulings signals a period of heightened regulatory oversight for the company, with additional appeals expected.

The most recent decision places a defined structure around how Google can operate in markets where it has long held dominant positions. With annual renegotiations required and data access widened, new competitors may gain momentum at a faster pace. The court’s expectations now position Google under a more closely supervised framework that is set to influence market dynamics in the years ahead.

Source:

Judge finalizes remedies in Google antitrust case, cnbc.com, December 5 2025.