NextFin News - In a pivotal hearing held on Friday, February 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta directed the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Google to bridge their significant disagreements over the operational framework of the Technical Committee tasked with overseeing the tech giant’s compliance with antitrust remedies. The dispute centers on whether the five-member panel should operate as a full-time executive body or a part-time advisory group, as well as the specific compensation levels for its members. According to Courthouse News, Judge Mehta has set a deadline of February 16 for the parties to reach an agreement, with a formal court ruling expected by February 17, 2026.
The Technical Committee was established following Judge Mehta’s landmark December 2025 final judgment, which found Google guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly in the search market through exclusive distribution agreements. On January 21, 2026, the court approved the first three members: Tammy Savage (recommended by the DOJ to serve as chair), Gerry Campbell (selected by a state coalition led by Colorado), and Professor John Abowd (chosen by Google). These members are responsible for the highly sensitive task of reviewing and approving "Qualified Competitors" who will gain access to Google’s proprietary search data and user-side indices—a remedy designed to level the playing field for rival search engines.
The current impasse reflects a fundamental difference in how the oversight process is envisioned. According to a joint status report filed on February 6, the DOJ and the Colorado-led state coalition argue that the committee’s work is so complex and critical that members must serve in full-time capacities with salaries comparable to senior Silicon Valley executives. Conversely, Google, represented by Schmidtlein of Williams & Connolly, maintains that the roles should be part-time, with pay aligned with expert witnesses. Schmidtlein argued for one-year terms to allow for flexibility, while the government proposed three-year terms to ensure continuity and prevent constant renegotiations.
This procedural friction is more than a mere budgetary squabble; it represents a strategic battle over the efficacy of behavioral remedies. By pushing for part-time status and lower pay, Google may be attempting to minimize the intrusive nature of the oversight. In contrast, the DOJ’s insistence on high-level, full-time commitment suggests a desire for a robust "shadow board" capable of deep technical audits. Justice Department attorney Maddox noted that former members of the Microsoft technical committee—the closest historical precedent—described the Google remedy as "way more complicated," requiring a total professional commitment to be effective.
The financial stakes are high for Google, which is responsible for funding the committee's operations. However, the broader risk lies in the committee’s power to grant competitors access to the "GLUE" statistical models and RankEmbed systems—the core algorithmic advantages that have sustained Google’s dominance. If the committee is under-resourced or lacks the authority to act decisively, the remedy of data sharing could become a bureaucratic bottleneck rather than a catalyst for competition. Dahlquist, representing the DOJ, informed the court that several potential competitors have already expressed interest in accessing this data, underscoring the urgency of the panel’s activation.
Looking forward, the resolution of this dispute will set the tone for the six-year enforcement period. If Judge Mehta sides with the government, it will signal a move toward a more interventionist regulatory model for Big Tech, where court-appointed experts hold significant sway over proprietary systems. However, Google’s ongoing appeal to the D.C. Circuit remains a major variable. Should the appellate court stay the remedies or vacate the liability ruling, the Technical Committee could find its mandate dissolved before it even begins the process of certifying its first "Qualified Competitor." For now, the industry remains focused on whether this oversight body will have the teeth—and the budget—to fundamentally alter the search landscape.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
