To understand the Google verdict, it helps to look back at the last great tech antitrust case: U.S. v. Microsoft in the 1990s. The ghost of that earlier battle loomed large over this one, and its legacy likely influenced the judge’s decision to avoid a corporate breakup.
The Microsoft case, which also involved a dominant company illegally bundling its browser (Internet Explorer) to crush competition, initially resulted in a judicial order to split the company in two. However, that breakup order was later overturned on appeal, and the final settlement involved only behavioral restrictions on Microsoft’s conduct.
This history created a powerful precedent. It established that even in a clear-cut case of monopoly abuse, American courts are extremely hesitant to actually break up a major technology company. The appeal court’s reversal in the Microsoft case signaled that structural remedies are a tool of last resort.
Judge Mehta, a student of legal history, was undoubtedly aware of this. His decision to opt for behavioral remedies (data sharing, no exclusivity) over a structural one (selling Chrome) fits perfectly within the post-Microsoft antitrust framework. It confirms that the era of trust-busting has, for now, been replaced by an era of trust-managing.