Google is entering the final phase of a landmark antitrust case on Monday, a decision that could potentially lead to the company’s breakup and dramatically alter the landscape of internet search.
Back in 2020, the U.S. Justice Department, alongside several states, accused Google of engaging in illegal practices to suppress competition, particularly by paying manufacturers of web browsers and mobile devices to ensure Google remains the default search engine.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta found in a ruling following a lengthy trial last summer that Google holds a monopoly and has engaged in behavior to maintain that status.
As one of the largest companies with a market value nearing $2 trillion, Google is expected to appeal any unfavorable ruling, although it must first navigate this current phase of the trial.
“People don’t use Google because they have to — they use it because they want to,” remarked Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, in a December statement.
Beginning this week, Judge Mehta will oversee hearings anticipated to last several weeks. During this time, both the Justice Department and Google will offer contrasting views on potential solutions to the monopolistic behaviors identified in the trial.
The government is advocating for several significant remedies. These include prohibiting Google from making payments to third-party manufacturers like Apple that keep Google as the default search engine, and possibly divesting its popular Chrome web browser and Android smartphone operating system.
Currently, Chrome is the most widely used web browser, while Android dominates the smartphone operating system market. Google search is automatically set as default in Chrome, and the Google apps bundled with Android devices include the Chrome browser.
The company’s lucrative advertising business relies heavily on data harvested from user interactions on Chrome and search activities.
Ahead of the hearing, Google’s legal team submitted a brief arguing that the Justice Department’s proposed solutions are disproportionate to the accusations against them.
They maintained that these measures would negatively impact consumers and stifle innovation, suggesting that users would be forced to utilize other search engines that may not deliver the same quality experience as Google.
Rebecca Haw Allensworth, an antitrust professor at Vanderbilt Law School, emphasized the significance of this case, asserting that it could define future regulation in digital markets.
She noted that excelling in innovation does not provide a shield against monopolistic practices that could hinder competition and stifle further innovation in the sector.
Historical parallels can be drawn from Microsoft’s antitrust battles that began in 1998, which focused on its Internet Explorer browser being bundled with the Windows operating system.
That case led to an order for Microsoft to split into two separate entities; however, upon appeal, that decision was overturned, and the matter was ultimately settled.
Observing the current situation with Google, antitrust expert John Newman from the University of Miami indicated that the outcome could usher in significant changes in tech innovation.
He explained that if the court sides with the government’s requests, it could drastically transform the competitive landscape for tech startups, particularly those focused on generative AI and other fields.
Currently, Google operates with a mindset akin to gravity in the digital space, consistently being the default option for users’ search needs and influencing their choices.
Newman argued that in this evolving battle for innovative ideas, the ongoing antitrust case signals that the government is prepared to intervene instead of allowing the market to dictate terms.
Initially, a proposed remedy by the Justice Department included a demand for Google to withdraw from its AI investments, a substantial amount exceeding $3 billion directed towards the AI research organization Anthropic.
However, the DOJ adjusted its stance in a March filing, opting not to place a divestment requirement on Google, while still voicing concern about its potential distinction within the AI sector.
The shift came as authorities determined that preventing Google from investing in AI could lead to unintended consequences in a rapidly evolving industry.
Simultaneously, Big Tech, including Google, faces increasing scrutiny on multiple fronts.
The upcoming court proceedings are taking place shortly after another federal judge ruled against Google in a significant case concerning its monopoly in some facets of online advertising technology.
As the trial unfolds, the future of Google and its role in the tech industry hangs in the balance, with outcomes from this case having independent implications for competition and innovation in digital markets.
image source from：https://www.npr.org/2025/04/20/nx-s1-5367750/google-breakup-antirust-trial-remedy-phase
