NRI PULSE STAFF REPORT
New Delhi: In a landmark decision, US District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta, an Indian-origin jurist, has ruled against tech giant Google, finding that the company engaged in monopolistic practices to maintain its dominance in the search engine and online advertising markets. The ruling is a major legal victory for the US government in its ongoing efforts to regulate Big Tech, with Judge Mehta’s name now firmly associated with one of the most significant antitrust cases of the decade.
Amit Mehta: From Patan to the Federal Bench
Born in Patan, India, in 1971, Mehta moved to the United States with his parents when he was one year old. He pursued his education at Georgetown University, earning a B.A. in Political Science and Economics, followed by a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.
After law school, Mehta’s career took him to prominent law firms and a clerkship with the Honorable Susan P. Graber of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His legal career included stints at Latham & Watkins LLP in San Francisco and the Washington, D.C.-based firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, where he specialized in white-collar criminal defense and complex business disputes.
In 2002, Mehta joined the District of Columbia Public Defender Service, serving as a staff attorney and gaining valuable experience in criminal law. He returned to private practice in 2007 but continued his commitment to public service through roles such as serving on the Board of Directors of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project and co-chairing the District of Columbia Bar’s Criminal Law and Individual Rights Section Steering Committee.
Mehta was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2014. Since then, he has presided over several high-profile cases, but none as significant as the antitrust lawsuit against Google.
He is married to Sunita Mehta, and they have two children together.
The Google Antitrust Case
The case that has brought Judge Mehta to the forefront of international attention began during the Trump administration, with the US government accusing Google of violating antitrust laws by using its market power to stifle competition. The lawsuit argued that Google’s exclusive agreements with companies like Apple, which made Google the default search engine on their devices, were anti-competitive and helped the company maintain its dominance in the market.
In his ruling, Judge Mehta concluded that Google had indeed acted as a monopolist, violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act. He highlighted the company’s practice of paying billions of dollars to secure its position as the default search engine, a strategy that effectively blocked out potential competitors like Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo.
Mehta’s opinion was unequivocal in its condemnation of Google’s actions, stating that the company’s behavior had harmed competition and that its dominance was not merely the result of consumer preference but also of strategic agreements that left little room for rivals to gain a foothold in the market.
Implications of the Ruling
Judge Mehta’s ruling is likely to trigger further legal actions and could lead to changes in how Google operates, particularly regarding its dealings with device makers and online service providers.
While Google has announced its intention to appeal the ruling, the case has already set a precedent for future antitrust actions against Big Tech companies. Legal experts suggest that the court could impose remedies such as a “choice screen” that would inform users of alternative search engines, or even consider breaking up the company if its behavior continues to threaten competition and innovation.
