The U.S. Antitrust Case Against Google: Breaking Up a Tech Giant

Google’s monopoly in search has drawn the ire of regulators and tech watchers alike.
As the Department of Justice seeks aggressive remedies, the future of the internet’s dominant engine hangs in the balance.

Google's Dominance and Its Consequences

Google controls nearly 90% of the global search engine market, a share that outpaces any competitor by a wide margin. In 2024, the company generated $198 billion from search-based advertising, accounting for more than half of its approximately $350 billion in total revenue. These revenues fuel massive investments in AI, infrastructure, and new services, further entrenching its position. Critics argue that Google's overwhelming market power stifles competition, limits consumer choice, and creates barriers to entry for smaller players, potentially reducing the diversity of search options and innovation in the tech sector.

Understanding the Case Against Google

“In August of 2024, a US judge ruled that Google holds an illegal monopoly over the internet search market and effectively blocks competitors from gaining market share.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) centers its case around what it calls Google’s “vicious cycle.” At its core, Google invests billions to secure default placement on browsers, devices, and apps, which drives more searches, generates more user data, improves search algorithms, and produces even more revenue. With deeper pockets, Google renews these placement deals, perpetuating an advantage that rivals find nearly impossible to overcome. To break this cycle, the DOJ is pursuing three key remedies:

• Stop Prime Placement Deals
  In 2023, Google reportedly paid Apple $18 billion to remain Safari’s default search engine, with similar deals in place across LG, Samsung, Verizon, AT&T, Mozilla, and Opera. The DOJ argues that default status cements Google’s dominance because users rarely switch search engines on their own. By outlawing these exclusive partnerships, regulators hope to open the door for alternative search providers and foster genuine competition.

• Divest Chrome
  Google Chrome boasts around 3.75 billion users worldwide. By owning both the browser and its default search engine, Google can cross-leverage data and user engagement to lock in its monopoly. The DOJ demands that Chrome be spun off to a separate entity, preventing the browser from reinforcing Google’s search hegemony. Google counters that splitting Chrome from its ecosystem would degrade performance and user experience, but critics say those concerns mask the true anticompetitive impact.

• Address AI Concerns
  When the DOJ first filed suit in 2020, AI was a footnote. Fast forward to 2024, and AI chatbots and large language models have transformed online search. Google’s Gemini reportedly taps into its massive search index—over 100 million gigabytes of web page data—to train and refine AI responses. The DOJ fears that without access to this dataset, AI rivals cannot compete. It is proposing that Google license its search data to any party, even competitors, to level the playing field. Google warns this would reduce it to a “white label” service, undermining incentives to maintain and improve its search infrastructure.

The Bigger Picture: Advertising and Beyond

Google’s antitrust challenges extend well beyond search. In a separate case, the DOJ accuses the company of monopolistic control over the digital advertising technology (ad tech) stack. By operating on both the buy side (advertisers) and sell side (publishers) while owning one of the largest ad exchanges, Google can influence auctions, impose fees, and prioritize its own inventory. Critics say this dual role harms both advertisers—who may pay higher prices—and publishers—who receive lower payouts. Regulators are reportedly considering forcing divestitures of key ad tech assets or imposing strict rules to prevent Google from self-preferencing in advertising auctions.

What Lies Ahead for Google?

The remedy phase of the DOJ’s search case could fundamentally reshape Google’s business model if the judge orders structural changes. Even if Google prevails, the broader environment remains fraught: the company recently lost another antitrust ruling over its advertising practices. Appeals can drag on for years, leaving Google’s future clouded by uncertainty. Meanwhile, regulators in Europe, the UK, and India are eyeing similar investigations. Should Google be split into multiple entities, or could behavioral remedies—such as nonexclusive licensing and transparent bidding—suffice? The stakes are high for investors, consumers, and the entire tech ecosystem.

Implications for Innovation and Competition

A breakup or strict behavioral controls on Google would send shockwaves across Silicon Valley and beyond. On one hand, a less concentrated search market could spur innovation, lower barriers to entry, and diversify services as startups and mid-size firms gain traction. On the other hand, advocates for Google warn that splintering its operations might hamper the company’s ability to fund large-scale research in AI and infrastructure, slowing progress on critical technologies. Balancing competition policy with continued innovation remains a core challenge for regulators worldwide.

Conclusion

As the Department of Justice pushes to dismantle aspects of Google’s search and advertising empire, policymakers, businesses, and consumers all have a stake in the outcome. The decisions made in U.S. courts could redefine how tech giants operate and how future antitrust enforcement unfolds.

• Assess if Google’s default placement deals and ad tech practices are harming competition in your market, and support policies that promote fairness and innovation.