The stock market went absolutely wild after Judge Mehta basically gave Google a hall pass for running a search monopoly. Alphabet's stock shot up 9% in one day, adding $210 billion in market value. That's more money than most countries' entire GDP, just for not getting broken up.
$210 Billion in Monopoly Money
This wasn't relief pricing, it was celebration pricing. Wall Street knew Google was never going to get seriously punished, but they had to pretend there was risk. The moment the judge said "nah, they're fine," traders hit buy faster than Siri fails to understand simple commands.
Who got rich today:
- Apple shareholders - their $20 billion Google bribery payments are safe
- Institutional investors - who never really believed Google would get split up
- Google employees - whose stock options just became worth a lot more
The judge's ruling was so toothless that analysts called it "pragmatic", which is corporate speak for "we got exactly what we wanted." Matt Britzman from Hargreaves Lansdown basically said the court chose "pragmatic remedies rather than scorched-earth tactics" - translation: Google keeps their monopoly, competitors keep getting screwed.
The AI Excuse That Everyone Bought
Judge Mehta pulled out the classic "but AI competition" argument, claiming that ChatGPT and other AI tools somehow make Google's search monopoly less problematic. Because apparently 10% of people occasionally using ChatGPT means Google doesn't control 90% of all search anymore.
This is like saying McDonald's doesn't have a monopoly on fast food because some people make salads at home. The judge bought Google's argument that AI chatbots are "genuine alternatives" to search, which shows he either doesn't understand how people actually use these tools or Google's lawyers are really good at their jobs.
Current data shows Google still holds 89.89% of global search market share, while ChatGPT accounts for maybe 9% of digital queries. That's not competition, that's Google allowing a small competitor to exist while they continue dominating the core search market.
The Apple Bribery Continues
The ruling explicitly allows Google to keep paying Apple $20 billion a year to be the default search engine on iPhones. You know, the exact same behavior that got them sued for monopoly practices in the first place.
Revenue streams that survived:
- Apple's protection money - $20 billion annually for search default
- Android manufacturer deals - Samsung, LG, etc. still locked into Google
- Chrome distribution - because 65% browser market share isn't enough
- YouTube ad integration - more ways to track you across their ecosystem
It's like being caught running an illegal casino and the punishment is "please don't have quite so many slot machines, but you can keep all the existing ones."
What This Actually Means for Tech Monopolies
This ruling basically tells every other tech monopoly: "Don't worry, we'll only make you promise to be nicer." Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft are all facing their own antitrust cases, and now they know the worst that'll happen is some paperwork and maybe a small fine.
The DOJ is suing Apple over smartphone monopoly, Meta over social media dominance, and has ongoing investigations into Amazon's marketplace practices. But after this Google ruling, why would any of these companies worry? The antitrust fight against Big Tech may already be over before it really started.
The DOJ came in demanding Google be broken up and left with the equivalent of a strongly worded email. Legal experts are calling this "measured approach to tech regulation," but developers and competitors know it's just regulatory capture with extra steps.
The precedent is set: as long as you're big enough and profitable enough, antitrust laws are really more like antitrust suggestions. Google's monopoly is now officially court-approved, and every other tech giant just got the blueprint for how to keep theirs too.
DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Bing are probably wondering why they even bothered trying to compete. The ruling essentially validates Google's search advertising revenue model while giving competitors table scraps. Competition experts warned this outcome would embolden other tech monopolies, and legal scholars are already calling it a missed opportunity for meaningful reform.