Marketecture Emergency Episode: Ari and Alan Chapell on the Google Search Remedies

Podcast: Marketecture: Get Smart. Fast.
Host: Ari Paparo
Guest: Alan Chapell, author of the Monopoly Report
Release Date: September 3, 2025

Episode Overview

This special "emergency" episode sees Ari Paparo joined by Alan Chapell to break down Judge Mehta’s highly anticipated remedies ruling in the Google Search antitrust case. Rather than a sweeping intervention, the court largely adopted Google’s own proposed remedies, leaving many industry observers underwhelmed and raising provocative questions about competition, regulatory willpower, and the future of the digital ecosystem. Together, Ari and Alan dissect the implications of the remedies, their likely (lack of) impact on Google's dominance, and what this could mean for related cases and future antitrust actions.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Judge Mehta’s Acceptance of Google’s Remedies (02:59–03:25)

• Alan: The judge “basically took what Google proposed, made some very minor edits to it, and then put that in his ruling.”
• The decision was surprisingly deferential to Google, with the court mostly dismissing calls for more structural changes.
• Industry observers who mocked Google’s proposals now see the judge embrace them virtually wholesale.

2. Major Remedy Considerations & Critiques

a. Chrome: No Divestment (03:52–06:00)

• Alan: Judge Mehta cited lack of “a significant causal connection” between Chrome and Google’s monopoly.

• Ari & Alan argue this ignores Chrome’s strategic purpose in supporting Google Search and maintaining Google’s dominance.

• Global impact was cited as a reason not to divest Chrome—seen as an “abdication” by Alan.

  "The idea that Judge Mehta has said, well, you know what, we're not going to divest Chrome because it impacts the rest of the world in such a big way? To me, felt a little bit like an abdication on his part." — Alan (05:35)

b. Android: Entirely Off the Table (06:56–07:20)

• The judge dismissed Android remedies outright, as the DOJ’s proposal was contingent and not strongly pursued.

c. Distribution Deals: Minor Tweaks, No Real Constraints (07:21–10:02)

• Headline issue: Google’s $28B+ annual payments to Apple and others for default placement weren’t meaningfully restricted.

• The judge was concerned about destabilizing the market and potential consequences for other tech players (e.g., Apple, Mozilla).

  "The judge just said, no, if we remove the payment, it will be devastating. He didn't say devastating, but it'll be problematic for Apple and the OEMs and the browser makers. It would save Google money. So we're not going to prohibit this payment." — Ari (07:56)

• Remedies included minor changes: limiting deals to one-year terms, banning exclusive bundling with AI/Search, and formal non-exclusivity—which Ari notes is somewhat meaningless due to real-world defaults.

d. Data Sharing (“Qualified Data User” Remedy) (10:02–15:38)

• Some access to Google search data for select competitors (e.g., DuckDuckGo, Microsoft), governed by a technical committee.

• Alan is skeptical: sees potential for Google to "run everybody around in circles," with constant changes to data access, privacy concerns, and technical obstacles that make it hard for real competition to emerge.

  "This to me seems like the exact type of scheme which plays very much into Google strengths, which is to run everybody around in circles for the next 18 months." — Alan (11:34)

• The expectation is for a highly restricted, “moving target" of both recipients and accessible data.

• Ari: Strong privacy and legal limitations will restrict useful data, particularly with state privacy laws (e.g., California).

e. Choice Screens: Not Required (15:58–17:00)

• Despite expectation that new user choice prompts would be implemented, the judge declined, citing judicial overreach into product design.
• Alan provides a counterpoint: research shows choice screens are “fairly useless,” so he doesn’t disagree with omitting them.

3. Impact Assessment: Will This Change Google's Search Monopoly? (17:00–22:31)

• Ari: “I think the effect is zero. There will be zero reduction in Google search monopoly based on anything in this ruling.”
• Alan: “Let the market figure it out... Maybe we're back in antitrust court in about five years with a different DOJ coming after Google's AI."
  • The ruling missed a pivotal moment to restrain Google, drawing parallels to missed regulatory opportunities in the past (e.g., FTC in 2013).
• The remedies are largely seen as enabling Google to maintain status quo, with minimal short-term industry impact.

4. Broader Context: The Shadow of AI & Regulatory Philosophy (18:26–20:52)

• Ari points out that “AI saved Google here”—the biggest threat now comes from new technology rather than the slow-moving courts.

  “The biggest criticism of antitrust historically has been they fight the last battle... now they're going after search just as search is becoming irrelevant.” — Ari (18:55)

• Alan disagrees with the idea that the remedy is prudent/forward-looking: “There was an opportunity to push antitrust law into the next thing and to be maybe a little bit more forward looking.”

• Ultimately, if AI erodes Google’s share materially, the market will shift faster than any legal intervention could have achieved.

5. Is Search a Natural Monopoly? (21:05–22:31)

• Ari introduces the "natural monopoly" argument—i.e., search’s scale precludes effective competitors.
• Alan remains skeptical, attributing Google’s dominance to business strategy and execution rather than inevitability and hope for multi-competitor AI future.

6. DOJ, Antitrust Fortitude, and the Question of Appeals (22:31–24:29)

• Alan notes the current Trump DOJ’s proposed remedies were almost identical to those suggested under the previous administration—a rare area of continuity.
• Ari & Alan discuss whether the DOJ or Google will appeal, but consensus emerges: both sides may just “take the deal.”

7. What’s Next & Carryover to Other Cases (24:41–31:00)

• Alan anticipates future DOJ cases may focus on new technologies (like AI), or other aspects of Google’s business.

• Multiple agencies often circle back repeatedly—as with the historic Microsoft antitrust saga.

• The upcoming ad tech case (Judge Brinkema) is seen as separate, and the outcome here may not dictate that trial’s direction, but may impact Google's settlement calculus.

  “I don't see that Judge Rinkham is looking at this and going up. Well, I might as well do nothing too.” — Alan (28:16)

• EU has quietly shifted rhetoric from potential breakup to considering only a fine—possibly influenced by geopolitics and the result of the US case.

• Speculation continues about whether Congress may ultimately need to intervene.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Chrome:

  “The reason they built Chrome was because they were scared that they were building a search business that was dependent on another company, namely Microsoft, who owned the browser.” — Ari (04:51)

• On the rationale for mild remedies:

  “It seemed like the judge was afraid of blowing up the market. The, the unintended consequences argument…” — Alan (08:14)

  “His job is like you had one job.” — Ari (08:38)

• On the potential for competitive search data access:

  “What's going to happen is…you’re going to think you've got a certain data flow…then there'll be an update or a change and, hey, this is to your benefit...but it'll be a significant change to the quality or quantity or formatting of the data that gets received. And it's really hard to build a business off of that.” — Alan (12:28)

• On AI’s impact on antitrust:

  “If AI is able to take 10 or 15% share from Google over the next year or two...that would be more effective than anything the judge would have recommended.” — Ari (20:41)

• On long-term trends:

  “There was a time in 2013 when Leibowitz was running the FTC where...they missed a moment to reign Google in. And I think this is another one of those moments.” — Alan (17:36)

• On the likely impact of the ruling:

  “I think the effect is zero. There will be zero reduction in Google search monopoly based on anything in this ruling.” — Ari (17:00)

Timeline of Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment Topic | |-----------|------------------------------------------------------| | 02:38 | Ari introduces Alan Chapell and sets up the episode | | 02:59 | Judge Mehta’s core ruling summarized | | 03:52 | Chrome divestment (and lack thereof) discussed | | 06:56 | Android remedies summarily dismissed | | 07:21 | Distribution deals and payments analyzed | | 10:02 | The “flywheel” effect of search distribution | | 11:26 | Data sharing as a remedy and its limitations | | 15:58 | Choice screens considered and dismissed | | 17:00 | Impact of remedies: Will this reduce monopoly? | | 18:26 | AI’s role in the trial and regulatory timing | | 21:05 | Is search a natural monopoly? | | 22:31 | Reflections on DOJ motivation and next steps | | 24:41 | Anticipating future cases and remedies | | 28:00 | Upcoming ad tech remedies and EU developments | | 30:51 | Broader regulatory and Congressional context | | 31:33 | Alan's Monopoly Report podcast promo |

Tone & Final Thoughts

This episode is sharply analytical, laced with industry-insider skepticism and a touch of snark. Both Ari and Alan combine legal, technical, and strategic perspective to highlight why so many in ad tech and antitrust circles find the remedies underwhelming—even potentially farcical. They express deep concern that the moment to effectively challenge Google's search dominance has slipped by, and the apparent remedies might only further entrench the status quo.

Yet there’s a thread of cautious optimism: The evolving landscape, especially the rise of generative AI and increased regulatory interplay, may offer new avenues for competition or future intervention—even if the search ruling itself changes little in the near term.

Further Resources

• Get Alan’s weekly analysis at: monopoly-report.com
• Subscribe and listen to the Monopoly Report Podcast for in-depth regulatory discussion.

For listeners:
If you want an incisive, unsentimental breakdown of the Google Search remedies ruling and what it means for the next decade of the web—and you’re allergic to legalese—this is the episode for you.