The DOJ filed a cross-appeal to Judge Amit Mehta's remedies ruling Tuesday, joining Google's own appeal weeks earlier. But here's what matters: the actual inflection point—the court decision that fundamentally altered Google's competitive constraints—happened months ago when Mehta ordered search data sharing and prohibited exclusive distribution deals. This cross-appeal doesn't represent a market shift. It's the predictable legal machinery grinding forward, extending uncertainty 2-4 years deeper into the appeals process. Decision-makers watching regulatory risk should understand the timeline just shifted significantly.

The DOJ's cross-appeal Tuesday morning feels like continuity, but it's actually the moment the real decision point recedes further into the future. Judge Amit Mehta issued his remedies ruling in September. That was the inflection—the moment when search data sharing became mandatory for Google, when exclusive distribution arrangements faced hard restrictions. This week's filing? It's the appeals bell ringing.

Both sides are contesting Mehta's September decision. Google wanted more protection for Chrome and complained the data-sharing requirements would be operationally destructive. The DOJ counter-argued that Mehta didn't go far enough—Chrome should be divested entirely, they'd argued, not just constrained. Now both sides are appealing separate aspects. Google wants to loosen the constraints. The DOJ wants them tighter. Neither party got what it wanted.

This is important for understanding the timeline, not the market transition. Appeals in antitrust cases at this level—DC Circuit Court of Appeals, potentially Supreme Court—routinely take 24 to 48 months. Regulatory precedent suggests we're looking at 2024 arguments at earliest, with decisions coming 2025 or 2026 at the fastest. That's not "soon" in tech time. That's geological.

Meanwhile, Mehta's remedies remain enforceable. Google must share search data with competitors. Google cannot structure distribution deals that lock out rival search engines or AI products. Chrome remains Google property. Exclusive payments for default placement are still allowed. The company operates under these constraints during the entire appeals process. That's the actual market reality.

For enterprises and investors, the meaningful shift happened in September when Mehta ruled. That ruling changed Google's competitive moat—specifically around distribution exclusivity and data access. Search advertisers now face a different competitive landscape than they did pre-ruling. That transition is already baked in. This appeal doesn't reverse it; it just extends the timeline for whether the constraints stay, tighten, or loosen further down the road.

The procedural element here matters only if you're modeling long-term regulatory risk. A Trump or Harris administration may prioritize antitrust enforcement differently. Congressional tech regulation—still in motion despite years of debate—could supersede court decisions. International jurisdictions are watching: the EU's Digital Markets Act already forces similar data-sharing requirements on Google, regardless of what US courts eventually decide. So the appeals process is happening in parallel with multiple other regulatory pressures on the same issue.

For builders considering competitive alternatives to Google Search, the Mehta ruling created a window. Data access improves rival positioning. That window stays open during appeals. Early movers in search alternatives or AI-powered discovery have 2-4 years to prove viability before any appellate court might change the competitive math again.

Investors monitoring Google's competitive positioning should model two scenarios: appellate courts affirm Mehta (distribution constraints remain), or they ease some restrictions (likely outcome would be somewhere between current constraints and full pre-ruling freedom). The wide range of outcomes is precisely why this case extends into 2026 or beyond. No clear signal means continued uncertainty pricing.

This cross-appeal is regulatory process, not market inflection. The real decision point came in September when Judge Mehta imposed constraints that fundamentally altered Google's competitive leverage. Enterprise decision-makers should model the Mehta ruling as the operational baseline for 2-4 years while appeals proceed—data sharing and distribution restrictions are the new normal until proven otherwise. Investors monitoring regulatory risk should watch for appellate court filings and decisions, not legal motions. The next actual inflection point comes when the DC Circuit or Supreme Court rules, not today.