Judge Forces Google’s Search & AI Deals Into Annual Renewal Cycle

Google's grip on default search and its AI contracts just got a judicial timer. A federal judge ruled the tech giant must put its foundational agreements up for renewal—every single year.

No More Autopilot

This isn't a fine or a breakup, but it's a structural handcuff. The order strips away permanence, forcing Google to justify its partnerships annually. It turns market dominance into a recurring negotiation—a vulnerability Wall Street hates.

The Compliance Clock Starts Now

Legal teams are already recalibrating. The ruling injects continuous uncertainty into Google's core revenue engine. Every year becomes a potential inflection point for competitors and regulators to chip away at its fortress.

For the finance crowd watching from the sidelines, it's a masterclass in regulatory theater—costly, complex, and ultimately a new line item on the balance sheet instead of a real market correction.

Judge Mehta’s ruling opens the door for AI rivals

Following Judge Mehta’s recent decision, the tech industry expressed excitement about a potential positive change in the ecosystem. This is because the yearly renegotiation will grant rivals, particularly those in the expanding generative AI market, the opportunity to compete for crucial positions.

Interestingly, the judge’s final decision has not interfered with Google’s operations. Sources close to the situation mentioned that the tech giant is still allowed to offer its products to Apple Inc., which are useful in the firm’s popular iPhone. It is still permitted to pay other electronics firms, such as Samsung Electronics Co., for default placement. 

However, even with this freedom in place, Mehta still insisted that these contracts needed to be renewed annually. The federal judge issued this reminder after noting that both Google and the US government had demonstrated their ability to comply with the one-year restriction on default contracts. 

Therefore, this situation prompted him to conclude that “the court holds that a strict termination requirement after one year WOULD best serve the purpose of the injunctive relief.” 

The ruling triggered heated debates among individuals. Considering the intense nature of the situation, reporters attempted to reach out to Google and the Justice Department for comments on the topic under discussion to ease this controversy. Nonetheless, they declined to respond.

On the other hand, several analysts weighed in on the matter. They acknowledged that Google’s case was a lengthy legal battle. To support this claim, reports highlighted that Mehta ruled that the tech giant was guilty of illegally monopolizing online search and search advertising markets in August 2024, following a 10-week trial.

Afterwards, he held a second trial in spring 2025, purposefully to examine the Justice Department’s request for the tech company to sell off its popular web browser, Chrome. 

Google plans to appeal Mehta’s initial ruling 

Regarding the Justice Department’s request, sources with knowledge of the situation mentioned that Mehta rejected that request for Google to sell off its popular web browser, Chrome. 

He argued that the best approach to this case was for the search giant to share specific data connected to its search results with rivals. The federal judge arrived at this decision in September 2025.

This ruling provided more details on earlier released reports regarding when the tech firm is required to share its data and to whom it must share the information.

Meanwhile, according to Mehta’s September ruling, Google was not allowed to pay firms to use its Search, Chrome web browser, or Google Play Store exclusively. However, he did not decide to prohibit all payments.

Additionally, it is worth noting that this ruling incorporated parts of suggestions from both Google and the Justice Department, which led the judge to consider issuing a second ruling to clarify certain technical terms from the initial decision. 

Although Google promised to adhere to the judge’s decision, it made clear its intention to appeal Mehta’s original ruling, which implied that its contracts with firms such as Apple and Samsung, under which its search engine is set as the default, break US antitrust laws.

After this announcement was made public, analysts noted that there is a high likelihood that the Justice Department may also think about appealing Mehta’s remedy decision.

The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.