DuckDuckGo CEO criticizes Google antitrust remedies as insufficient

DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg delivered sharp criticism of the court-ordered remedies against Google on September 2, 2025, declaring that the measures fall short of addressing what his company describes as illegal monopolistic behavior. The statement, posted on social media at 11:23 PM, attracted 230,900 views within hours and represents the privacy-focused search engine's first public response to the antitrust ruling.

According to Weinberg's statement, the remedies fail to prevent Google from leveraging its monopoly position to suppress competition. "We do not believe the remedies ordered by the court will force the changes necessary to adequately address Google's illegal behavior," he wrote. The DuckDuckGo executive specifically highlighted concerns about artificial intelligence search, stating that Google "will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search."

The criticism comes as Google faces unprecedented antitrust pressure across multiple fronts. Federal courts have ruled against the company in two separate monopolization cases, with U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta concluding in August 2024 that Google illegally maintained monopolies in general search services and search text advertising markets. A separate Virginia court ruling in April 2025 found Google violated antitrust laws by monopolizing digital advertising technology markets.

Judge Mehta's September 2, 2025 ruling rejected demands for Google to divest its Chrome browser while implementing behavioral remedies including auction transparency requirements and restrictions on exclusive distribution agreements. The 230-page decision requires Google to disclose advertising auction modifications and end certain exclusive deals but stops short of the structural breakup sought by the Department of Justice.

The remedies package mandates that Google provide competitors with enhanced data access and syndication opportunities. Search engines and AI chatbots will receive improved access to Google's search index data under specific licensing arrangements. The ruling also prohibits Google from entering new exclusive distribution agreements with device manufacturers and requires existing contracts to be modified by September 10, 2025.

Weinberg's response reflects broader industry concerns about the effectiveness of behavioral remedies versus structural changes. His statement concluded with a call for Congressional intervention: "We believe Congress should now step in to swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field." The DuckDuckGo CEO's emphasis on AI search reflects growing competition in artificial intelligence-powered information retrieval.

ChatGPT's rapid growth has industry analysts predicting potential to overtake Google's search traffic by 2030, driven by evolving user preferences for conversational AI interfaces. Google's Gemini chatbot competes directly with OpenAI's platform, but according to Columbia law professor Tim Wu, Google has operated "with the proverbial policeman at the elbow" during antitrust proceedings, limiting aggressive competitive responses.

The competitive landscape has already shifted due to antitrust pressure. Apple chose ChatGPT over Google's Gemini for iPhone AI-assisted search functionality, demonstrating how ongoing legal proceedings influence partnership decisions. Similarly, Perplexity AI officials have described increased opportunities since Google came under antitrust scrutiny.

DuckDuckGo's market position remains challenging despite privacy-focused features gaining adoption. The search engine processes approximately 9 million monthly downloads across mobile and desktop platforms but faces significant competitive pressure from Google's dominant market position. According to recent data, Google maintains 87% global search dominance while DuckDuckGo represents a niche but growing segment prioritizing privacy over advertising-supported models.

The company has consistently positioned itself as an alternative to mainstream search platforms through user control over data collection and content filtering. DuckDuckGo launched anonymous AI chat services in June 2024 and expanded scam protection features throughout 2025, emphasizing privacy-respecting technology alternatives.

Court documents in related litigation specifically mentioned DuckDuckGo's competitive challenges resulting from Google's exclusionary agreements, noting the platform "cannot compete effectively because of Google's exclusionary default search agreements." The Northern California court ruling in January 2025 allowed consumer lawsuits to proceed based on evidence that Google's default contracts prevented emergence of privacy-focused search alternatives.

Technical implementation of the September 2 remedies will test their practical effectiveness. Google must establish data sharing mechanisms and modify auction transparency within 120 days. The company faces additional oversight through court-appointed monitors responsible for compliance verification. These requirements aim to create competitive opportunities for rivals while preserving user experience and innovation incentives.

Industry observers note that Google faces potential breakup demands across multiple cases, with a separate Virginia remedies trial beginning September 22, 2025, addressing advertising technology monopolization. The combined impact threatens multiple revenue streams simultaneously, as Google Services accounted for 87% of Alphabet's revenue in the fourth quarter of 2024.

Private litigation has accelerated following government victories, with advertisers filing collateral estoppel motions to prevent Google from relitigating monopoly findings already established in court. Major publishers including Dotdash Meredith have filed comprehensive antitrust lawsuits seeking damages for Google's advertising technology monopolization.

The convergence of multiple antitrust cases creates unprecedented pressure on Google's integrated business model. Weinberg's criticism suggests that even successful government prosecution may prove insufficient to restore competitive conditions without more aggressive intervention. The DuckDuckGo CEO's call for Congressional action reflects concerns that judicial remedies alone cannot address the scope of Google's market power across search, advertising, and emerging AI technologies.

Market analysts emphasize that remedy effectiveness depends on implementation details and enforcement mechanisms. Google's history of circumventing regulatory restrictions through technical workarounds raises questions about behavioral remedies' long-term viability. The company recently faced sanctions motions for allegedly destroying millions of internal chat messages during litigation discovery periods.

International regulatory developments may influence domestic enforcement approaches. The European Union has implemented more aggressive structural remedies against technology companies, while other jurisdictions observe U.S. proceedings closely for precedential value. Indonesia's decision to block DuckDuckGo in August 2024 highlighted both the platform's international reach and potential regulatory challenges facing alternative search providers.

The artificial intelligence dimension adds complexity to traditional antitrust analysis. Unlike previous technology monopolization cases focused on established markets, courts must now consider competitive dynamics in rapidly evolving AI-powered information retrieval. Weinberg's specific mention of AI search reflects recognition that future competition may depend more on chatbot capabilities than traditional web search interfaces.

The September 2 remedies represent a middle ground between maintaining the status quo and implementing dramatic structural changes. Whether these measures prove sufficient to restore competitive conditions will likely determine the future of antitrust enforcement in technology markets. Weinberg's immediate criticism suggests that privacy-focused competitors view the remedies as preserving rather than dismantling Google's competitive advantages.

Implementation will occur under judicial oversight with quarterly compliance reports required. Google must also establish technical mechanisms for data sharing and auction transparency that competitors can effectively utilize. The success of these requirements in creating genuine competitive opportunities will influence both appeal strategies and future regulatory approaches to technology monopolization.

Timeline

• August 2024: Judge Mehta rules Google illegally maintained search monopoly
• January 22, 2025: Federal court allows consumer lawsuit against Google's search default contracts to proceed
• March 7, 2025: Department of Justice files revised proposed final judgment demanding Chrome sale
• April 17, 2025: Virginia court rules Google monopolized digital advertising markets
• June 18, 2025: Industry analyst predicts ChatGPT could overtake Google search traffic by 2030
• June 19, 2025: DuckDuckGo expands Scam Blocker protection against fake e-commerce sites
• June 20, 2025: First private collateral estoppel motion filed against Google following monopoly ruling
• July 22, 2025: DuckDuckGo announces comprehensive browser redesign with enhanced privacy interface
• July 25, 2025: DuckDuckGo introduces AI image blocking toggle for search results
• August 29, 2025: Dotdash Meredith files comprehensive antitrust lawsuit against Google
• September 2, 2025: Judge Mehta delivers remedies ruling rejecting Chrome divestiture
• September 2, 2025: DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg criticizes Google antitrust remedies as insufficient
• September 22, 2025: Google advertising technology remedies trial scheduled to begin in Virginia

Summary

Who: Gabriel Weinberg, CEO of DuckDuckGo, a Pennsylvania-based privacy-focused search engine company founded in 2008 that emphasizes user data protection over advertising-supported business models.

What: Weinberg issued a public statement criticizing the court-ordered antitrust remedies against Google as insufficient to address illegal monopolistic behavior, specifically expressing concern that Google will continue blocking competitors in AI search markets.

When: The statement was posted on September 2, 2025, at 11:23 PM, immediately following Judge Amit Mehta's 230-page remedies ruling that rejected demands for Google to divest its Chrome browser while implementing behavioral restrictions.

Where: The statement was published on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) and garnered 230,900 views within hours, reaching a global audience concerned about search market competition and AI development.

Why: The criticism reflects broader industry concerns that behavioral remedies rather than structural breakup measures will prove inadequate to restore competitive conditions in search and emerging AI markets, prompting Weinberg's call for Congressional intervention to create a "level playing field."