After a five-year legal showdown pitting the U.S. Department of Justice against Google, a federal judge concluded that the disruptive forces of artificial intelligence technology will have a better chance of hobbling an illegal monopoly than any restraints imposed by a court order.

That was one of the underlying themes of a highly-anticipated ruling issued late Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta. After ruling that Google’s dominant search engine had turned into an illegal monopoly back in August 2024, the judge spent the next 13 months mulling the best way to rein in the technology powerhouse’s bad behavior.

At the same time, the technology landscape had been thrust into the throes of a tectonic shift that couldn’t have been anticipated in October 2020 when the Justice Department filed its landmark antitrust case against Google. At that time, few people had even heard of OpenAI, let alone its chatbot ChatGPT, which wasn’t released until late 2022.

Artificial intelligence rarely came up during the 2024 trial that culminated in Google being declared a monopoly, but the technology’s role became a focal point in the remedy hearings earlier this spring — especially AI’s role in spawning conversational “answer engines” from ChatGPT and Perplexity. Those advances made the judge reluctant to use his legal power to override what may already be happening through technological evolution.

Mehta ended up crafting a subdued ruling that rejected the Justice Department’s push to have Google sell its popular Chrome web browser and block the company from paying — more than $20 billion annually — to make its search engine the default on popular devices and web browsers.

Instead of embracing those drastic measures, Mehta chose to prescribe what most analysts and antitrust experts viewed as a light-handed punishment, which propelled the stock price of Google’s parent Alphabet Inc. to a new high of $230.86 during Wednesday’s trading.

But the judge is still shaking things up by requiring Google to share some of the secret sauce in its recipe for success — the massive trove of search data that it has accumulated from billions of users since the company’s 1998 inception in a Silicon Valley garage. Parts of those databases will be opened up to rival search engines such as DuckDuckGo and other “qualified competitors.”

Mehta’s ruling is being viewed widely as little more than a slap on the wrist, prompting reactions of disappointment and disdain. “It is a historic misfire that fails to meet the enormity of the finding that Google is a monopolist in online search,” said Christo Wilson, a Northeastern University computer sciences professor, who has studied Google’s operations.

Investors are clearly betting that it will remain mostly business as usual at Google, which is expected to generate nearly $400 billion in revenue this year. As of early Wednesday afternoon, Alphabet’s stock price had surged by 9%, creating an additional $230 billion in shareholder wealth.

Even though the judge rebuffed most of the Justice Department’s proposed remedies, the agency maintained the case would foster more competition in the online search market.

“This decision marks an important step forward in the Department of Justice’s ongoing fight to protect American consumers,” U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement.

The case is uniquely tied to President Donald Trump, given that it began during his first term in office and is wrapping up during the early stages of his second stint in the White House.

But outsiders don’t see much for the Justice Department to crow about in Mehta’s ruling, especially since it explicitly cited the attempt to force a breakup of Google as a bridge too far.

The decision “may prove to be at best a pyrrhic victory,” predicted Joseph V. Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington think tank that gets some of its funding from Alphabet and other technology companies.

“After making the legally sound and morally courageous decision to find Google liable for illegal monopolistic practices, Judge Mehta apparently decided that actually enforcing the law was more than he could stomach,” lamented Barry Lynn, executive director for the Open Markets Institute, a group focused on minimizing corporate power.