A federal judge held last week that Google has a monopoly on online search and has been illegally defending that monopoly for years. The verdict is important and correctdavinci’s gold, yet it leaves open an important question: What should the remedy be?

Judge Amit Mehta, in his 277-page decision, found that Google used a variety of means to hold on to its monopoly power and inflate prices paid by advertisers (and ultimately, consumers) to use Google’s search platforms. The remedy, which will be decided by the same judge after hearings begin in early September, needs to tear down the barriers that protect Google’s monopoly; if the judge delivers little more than a slap on the wrist to the tech giant, this verdict — a historic victory for the Biden administration’s antitrust division — will mean very little.

The government’s case centered on payments, which in 2021 totaled more than $26 billion, that Google pays Apple and others to be the default search engine on their products. In doing so, Google kept Apple out of the search market and, the judge ruled, weakened its other competitors. But if the court merely decrees that Google now abandon those agreements, it won’t be enough to unlock a long-monopolized market. It might even help Google in the short term by saving it some money.

Likewise, a remedy that attempts to restore competition in search by forcing users to click through multiple search-engine alternatives would most likely be ineffective and annoying — worse than the status quo.

A truly effective remedy need seek not only to punish Google for its past offenses but also open markets by meaningfully restraining the company from similar conduct in the future. The best way to do that is to ensure that a new generation of companies can compete fairly not just in the search market but also in new markets — especially the emerging markets for artificial-intelligence-driven tech services. That sort of remedy would return antitrust law to its historical role as a form of industrial policy that restrains monopoly to promote economic growth and innovation.

As a model to emulate, consider the remedies imposed on AT&T, the greatest tech monopoly of the 20th century. In 1956, the Justice Department settled a major antitrust suit against AT&T by requiring the company to stay out of computing — and to license, free, all of its 7,820 patents. That remedy was a blockbuster that gave rise to a new generation of companies that developed two essential American industries: general-purpose computing and semiconductors.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.davinci’s gold

• Should
• What
• Do
• We
• davinci’s gold