Explore All The Prompts
In the sixth entry of the Prompt series, our experts tackled a question inspired by recent headlines:
"With the Google remedy now decided, what is your key takeaway from Judge Mehta's opinion?"
The Prompt
Answering antitrust challenges one question at a time
The Chamber has assembled a range of preeminent experts in the field of antitrust from across a wide political spectrum to offer timely views on key questions of antitrust law and policy. This group brings together senior enforcers spanning seven administrations, from both the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.
Many contributors noted (either with surprise, approval, or both) that Judge Mehta took a measured approach…
“Surprisingly cautious, even for a cautious judge. Of course, the DOJ’s proposed sale of Chrome was a form of conscious or unconscious self-parody.”
“Judgments about appropriate remedies in a dynamic market are difficult and carry significant risk, which caused the judge to take a conservative approach.”
“Judge Mehta's narrowly focused remedy is appropriate, and for the right reason: a changing market landscape driven by AI is already creating new competition for Google's search engine. The judge was no softie on liability, but on remedies he correctly called out DOJ for overreaching.”
“It indicates a concern on the part of the court in doing too much to disrupt a backbone business, even though the evidence has shown that the business was built in part on anticompetitive conduct.”
Others found a lot to agree with in the opinion:
“Judge Mehta's opinion is impressive in its clarity, depth, and fidelity to the facts and the law. He convincingly shows that the government badly over-reached by seeking to hobble Google without regard to the adverse effects on third parties rather than to restore the competition lost as a result of Google's illegal conduct. “
“Platforms create value and aggressive remedies such as breakup should not be suggested except under exceptional circumstances.”
“Although a few details in the opinion are potentially subject to challenge, the opinion as a whole is thoughtful, well-reasoned, and balanced.”
“The decision reflects careful analysis and a respect for precedent and facts. It will be interesting to see if the remedy works as intended.”
“Judge Mehta commendably rejected structural and other relief not closely related to the alleged anticompetitive behavior, the 'exclusive' (actually rent-sharing) contracts. Implicitly, he took a page from the DC Circuit’s rejection of Judge Jackson’s Microsoft breakup proposal.”
“Judge Mehta’s remedies are consistent with prior Section 2 cases challenging exclusive deals as monopoly maintenance and are likely to withstand challenge on appeal.”
“Judge Mehta’s opinion is thorough and well-reasoned. It shows the challenges with fashioning conduct remedies in markets affected by AI, and I believe it will be looked upon favorably in the future.”
Finally, two contributors ventured a guess about factors leading to Judge Mehta’s decision without offering an opinion as to whether he got it right:
“AI is going to be highly disruptive on the antitrust front going forward and the antitrust community needs to understand."
"The Google remedies opinion tells us a lot about antitrust’s emerging role in the digital sector. Two takeaways are likely to have significant staying power. First, the rapid pace of innovation poses ongoing challenges in light of the slow pace of antitrust litigation and the consumer welfare standard, largely overlooked in the DOJ’s proposed remedies, remains alive and well."
