In a significant legal development, longtime Google competitors, such as Yelp and DuckDuckGo, secured a major win when a federal judge ruled that Google operates as an illegal monopoly. However, despite this victory, the reactions from these companies have been measured, reflecting the understanding that the real challenge lies ahead: ensuring effective remedies are implemented to restore competition.

Yelp’s CEO, Jeremy Stoppelman, emphasized the importance of strong corrective measures in a blog post, acknowledging the recent ruling as a milestone but stressing that much work remains. Similarly, Kamyl Bazbaz, DuckDuckGo’s Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, highlighted the need for a comprehensive remedies trial, one that delves into the intricate details and proposes solutions capable of making a lasting impact. Both statements underscore the critical importance of the upcoming phase where Judge Amit Mehta will determine how to reinstate competition in the search services and search text advertising markets.

This phase is particularly crucial given the past experiences of companies like DuckDuckGo, which witnessed Google’s dominance persist in the European Union despite the introduction of measures like a search engine choice screen. Bazbaz pointed out that while some of these remedies had potential, Google found ways to sidestep their effectiveness. DuckDuckGo is now advocating for the involvement of independent technical experts to oversee the enforcement of any court-ordered remedies, ensuring that Google does not find new avenues to maintain its advantage.

Among the proposed remedies are periodic choice screens, a ban on manipulative popups designed to steer users back to Google, and prohibitions on Google securing default status through pre-installation deals. Yelp’s Stoppelman also suggested that Google should be required to divest services that have unfairly benefited from its search monopoly, alongside barring exclusive search deals and self-preferencing in search results.

Other stakeholders, including groups representing publishers reliant on Google for traffic, have also weighed in. Some have proposed more drastic measures, such as forcing Google to separate its Chrome and Android businesses, which could open up competition for other search engines. This suggestion arises from concerns that the data interlinked across Google’s various platforms significantly strengthens its search product.

However, the path forward could be lengthy, as Google has already indicated plans to appeal the ruling. Kent Walker, Google’s President of Global Affairs, acknowledged the ruling but argued that it restricts the company from making its search engine easily accessible despite being recognized as the best available.

Adding to the complexity of the situation is the looming impact of artificial intelligence, which could fundamentally alter the search industry in the near future. Some experts suggest that any remedy must take into account AI advancements, potentially requiring Google to grant access to its large language models.

While the Department of Justice has not yet specified the remedies it will seek, antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter has hinted at the possibility of pursuing structural changes, such as breaking up parts of Google’s business. Should the court endorse such a broad remedy, the tech landscape could undergo a dramatic transformation.

Reflecting on the broader implications, Stoppelman likened this case to the historic Microsoft antitrust decision 23 years ago, which he credited with fostering an era of innovation that ultimately benefited companies like Google. He expressed excitement about the potential for new technologies and innovations that could emerge from this ruling in the coming decade.