Google's search remedies have bound it since 3 February, and the government is not appealing on Chrome

Google is currently complying with a set of antitrust remedies it is simultaneously asking a federal appeals court to throw out. That is the part of the United States search monopolisation case that the public shorthand, which holds that Google won the remedies phase and is now waiting on appeal, leaves out.

The sequence is in the court record. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on 5 August 2024, and judgment finding Google liable for violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully maintaining its monopolies in general search services and general search text advertising. He entered additional findings after a remedies trial on 2 September 2025. The Final Judgment itself, docket entry 1462 in case 1:20-cv-03010, was entered on 5 December 2025. Section VIII provides that the judgment takes effect 60 days after the date on which it is entered, and that it expires six years from that effective date unless the court grants an extension or early termination.

Sixty days after 5 December 2025 is 3 February 2026. The plaintiffs' first status report on Google's compliance, docket entry 1512, filed on 4 May 2026, states plainly that the Section III contractual remedies have been in effect since February 3, 2026.

Those remedies are narrower than a breakup and broader than nothing. Google may not condition the licensing of Google Play or any other Google application on the distribution, preload, placement, display, use or license of the Google Search app, the Chrome browser, Google Assistant or any Google generative AI product on any device sold in the United States. It may not condition payments, or the licence of Google Play or any Google software application, on a device manufacturer or wireless carrier refraining from developing, distributing or preloading any third party general search service, browser or generative AI product. Where a default agreement is permitted, it must expire after one year and must expressly permit the counterparty, including browser developers and Apple, to promote any third party general search service and third party generative AI product.

Compliance is partial and slow. Google's counsel notified the plaintiffs by email on 27 February 2026 that Google believed it had taken all steps necessary to comply with Section III. The data sharing and syndication obligations in Sections IV to VI were still being implemented as of the May report. The technical committee that is supposed to police all of this had three standing members appointed on 21 January 2026 but did not become fully engaged until 30 March 2026, after extensive negotiations from January to March over the services, confidentiality and indemnity agreements. A source code and algorithm agreement was still outstanding, with Google supplying a first draft on 14 April 2026. Google's first nominee as internal compliance officer, identified on 5 January 2026, was not approved by the plaintiffs after an interview. An alternate was identified on 4 March, interviewed on 13 March and approved on 26 March 2026.

Both sides appealed. Search Engine Land reported on 4 February 2026 that the Justice Department and a coalition of states had filed notices of appeal the previous day, the same day the injunctions took effect. The appeals are consolidated in the D.C. Circuit as Nos. 26-5023, 26-5047 and 26-5049.

On 28 July 2026 the United States and the co-plaintiff states filed their response brief and opening brief on cross-appeal. It corrects a common description of what the government wants. The cross-appeal raises a single question: whether the district court erred by rejecting a payment ban without first determining whether a remedy lacking a payment ban would effectively redress Google's violations and restore competition in the monopolised markets. On divestiture, a footnote in the brief is explicit that plaintiffs do not cross-appeal the divestiture ruling. The brief's conclusion asks the court to vacate and remand the denial of a payment ban but otherwise affirm the judgment below. Chrome divestiture is before the D.C. Circuit only to the extent Google's own appeal puts the whole judgment in issue.

The brief lists an unusually crowded field of friends of the court, including Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, Brave Software, OpenAI, the Washington Legal Foundation and several groups of economists and legal scholars. Apple and Samsung are counterparties to the distribution agreements the remedies rewrite.

What is not known is when any of this resolves. The cover of the 28 July brief records that oral argument has not yet been scheduled. No appellate decision has issued. The technical committee's substantive work had barely started when the plaintiffs last reported to the court, and the judgment's six year clock has been running since February.