# Judge Mehta holds that Google monopolised search

Date: 2024

## The fact

On 5 August 2024 Judge Amit Mehta held that Google is a monopolist and acted as one to maintain a search monopoly, a completed Section 2 liability opinion under CEO Pichai.

## Context

Neighbouring DMA 2023 is EU listing. Neighbouring remedies 2025 is later. He did not write the Sherman Act.

DMA 2023 is neighbouring EU. Remedies 2 September 2025 are neighbouring US relief. Chrome 2008 is neighbouring product used as a default vehicle.

[Sundar Pichai](/people/sundar-pichai) has been CEO of Google since 10 August 2015 and of Alphabet since 3 December 2019. He does not write a Sherman Act complaint, a Commission DMA article, a CAC circular, or a Pentagon contract clause by himself as a civil servant. A keynote is not a completed breakup. A liability opinion is not a Chrome sale. A layoff round is not a unique unemployment coefficient as his personal tally. TPU trains; TSMC and partners fabricate; App Review analogues on Play enforce. Keep those dates separate. An AI Principle PDF is not a completed weapons ban. A settlement is not a verdict. [Larry Page](/people/larry-page) is a different person. Sergey Brin is a different person.

## Evidence and sources

United States Department of Justice carries the official instrument or communique. Reuters records the same dated act independently.

## Significance

The path is [antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets](/drivers/antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets): a completed Section 2 liability opinion is an accountability instrument on default-search rents. An opinion is not a Chrome sale.

## What is established and what is not

Established: 5 August 2024 Mehta liability opinion, independently reported.

Not established: that Chrome was already ordered sold, or a unique later CPI coefficient from the PDF.

What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, a later repeal, a court that vacated the instrument, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions.

The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit.

DOJ sued in 2020. Mehta found liability. Page/Brin remained neighbouring controllers. He did not sit as the judge.. A later repeal, court stay, or successor order would be a different Fact with a different date. That pair identifies Judge Mehta holds that Google monopolised search, not a later speech about Judge Mehta holds that Google monopolised search.

Co-authors and later implementers named in Context remain on the file. Judge Mehta holds that Google monopolised search on 2024-08-05 is not a licence to treat every later United States Department of Justice communique as this same act. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. This dossier refuses to average Judge Mehta holds that Google monopolised search into a personality. The contribution described on this Person row is limited to He was CEO of the defendant. DOJ sued in 2020. Mehta found liability. Page/Brin remained neighbouring controllers. He did not sit as the judge. That limit is the alternative to treating office-holding as authorship of every later series.

## People

- Sundar Pichai: https://factrail.ai/people/sundar-pichai

## Drivers

- Antitrust Pressure in Digital Markets: https://factrail.ai/drivers/antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets
- Digital-Platform Power Concentration: https://factrail.ai/drivers/digital-platform-power-concentration

## Sources

- https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-judge-rules-google-illegal-search-monopoly-2024-08-05/
- https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-plaintiff-states-v-google-llc

## Methodology

https://factrail.ai/methodology

Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/goog-doj-2024