On September 23, 2025, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) hosted a panel discussion titled, “DOJ v. Google: The Remedies Decision and the Future of Search,” an event examining what Judge Amit Mehta’s recently announced remedies mean for the search market and the broader digital economy. I was privileged to join the discussion as one of the panelists in order to bring the perspective of small businesses and startups. This case, now facing potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court, has direct consequences for small business entrepreneurs who use digital platforms to grow, innovate, and create American jobs.
Earlier this year, Judge Mehta found that Google’s agreements making it the default search engine across browsers and devices violated U.S. antitrust laws. The remedies phase that followed sought to restore competition without causing new forms of harm. In his final ruling, Judge Mehta declined to impose the most drastic structural measures, such as breaking up Google or divesting Chrome or Android, but he did order a series of behavioral reforms. These included prohibiting Google from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts that tie placement to default status for more than a year and requiring the company to give rivals access to its search index, user interaction data, and syndication services. The ITIF panel explored whether these remedies strike the right balance or risk unintended consequences for consumers, developers, and the broader ecosystem.
During the discussion, I emphasized that the major platform policy shifts being proposed in high-profile cases like DOJ v. Google deeply impact countless small companies whose success depends on consistent rules. For example, if courts compel Google to unbundle core services, share indexing data, or meet broad interoperability mandates, developers will face a fragmented and unstable technical environment. Small firms like those the App Association represents operate on thin margins and lack the resources their larger competitors have that are needed to constantly reengineer products or maintain compatibility across multiple newly separated systems. Predictable, stable platform relationships are essential for small firms to reach users, generate revenue, and plan for the future. U.S. antitrust enforcement must reflect that reality.
The App Association has long worked to ensure that the small business community’s perspective is represented in cases and policy debates that shape the digital economy. The Association has filed multiple amicus briefs in DOJ v. Google to help courts understand how proposed remedies affect small developers. Notably, in an amicus filing earlier this year, the App Association warned that DOJ’s more extreme structural proposals, such as forced divestitures or mandated data-sharing, would create overlapping technical standards and compliance regimes that smaller companies simply cannot manage, ultimately harming the very small innovators that policymakers should be protecting.
This advocacy builds on our involvement in other landmark cases addressing platform governance, including Epic Games v. Google. In that case, the App Association submitted briefs at both the appellate and Supreme Court stages urging courts to consider the collateral effects of sweeping injunctions. Similar to DOJ v. Google, the App Association’s voice is critical in emphasizing that antitrust remedies that hastily destabilize platform relationships or mandate sudden structural shifts inject uncertainty that reverberates across the entire app economy.
The implications of Judge Mehta’s ruling extend far beyond immediate compliance burdens. Even without the more extreme remedies sought by the DOJ, the measures he ordered could significantly reshape how search, indexing, and default placements function across devices, fundamentally altering how consumers discover new apps and services. Whether or not the Supreme Court ultimately grants certiorari, the precedent set in this case will influence how courts and policymakers approach competition remedies throughout the broader platform economy, from app stores to digital advertising. For that reason, the App Association continues to highlight that effective antitrust remedies should curb anticompetitive behavior without dismantling the ecosystem relied upon by small developers to innovate and compete.
The next phases of DOJ v. Google will be pivotal. With petitions for Supreme Court review pending, and with the Court declining to stay enforcement of the remedies order, the new rules will take effect even as appeals proceed. This can create serious operational challenges for small developers caught between shifting legal requirements and evolving platform policies (which may yet be reversed by the Supreme Court when all is said and done). In this case and others, the App Association will continue to advocate for evidence-based policymaking that protects both competition and innovation.
The ITIF event underscored that, despite Judge Mehta’s refusal to impose harsh structural breakups, the DOJ v. Google case remains far-reaching in scope and impact. For App Association members, the stakes could not be higher. The remedies ultimately implemented will determine whether the digital marketplace remains open to new entrants or becomes burdened by complexity that only the largest firms can navigate. As this case moves forward, ACT | The App Association will remain a leading voice ensuring that the realities and needs of small developers are not lost in the debate over how to shape the future of competition and innovation.