A US judge has determined that Google has breached antitrust laws by investing billions to establish an unlawful monopoly, making it the default search engine globally. This decision marks a significant victory for federal authorities challenging Big Tech’s dominance in the market.
According to the ruling, Google commands approximately 90% of the online search market and 95% of the smartphone sector. The judgment represents a major triumph for those confronting the overpowering influence of Big Tech.
The verdict also sets the stage for a forthcoming trial to explore possible remedies, which could include the breakup of Google’s parent company, Alphabet. Such a move could drastically alter the online advertising sphere that Google has long controlled, as reported by Reuters.
This decision empowers US antitrust regulators to take more decisive action against Big Tech, a sector increasingly scrutinized from all political angles.
“The court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” wrote District Judge Amit Mehta.
The “remedy” phase could extend over a considerable period, potentially leading to appeals to the District of Columbia Circuit and the US Supreme Court. The legal proceedings might continue into next year or even 2026.
On Monday, shares of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, dropped by 4.5% amid a broader decline in tech stocks. Google’s advertising revenue constituted 77% of Alphabet’s total sales in 2023.
Alphabet has indicated plans to appeal Mehta’s ruling. “This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” Google stated.
US Attorney General Merrick Garland hailed the ruling as “a historic win for the American people,” asserting that “no company — no matter how large or influential — is above the law.”
Judge Mehta highlighted that Google paid $26.3 billion in 2021 alone to secure its search engine as the default on smartphones and browsers, thereby preserving its dominant market share. “The default is extremely valuable real estate … Even if a new entrant were positioned from a quality standpoint to bid for the default when an agreement expires, such a firm could compete only if it were prepared to pay partners upwards of billions of dollars in revenue share and make them whole for any revenue shortfalls resulting from the change,” Mehta wrote.
He further noted, “Google, of course, recognizes that losing defaults would dramatically impact its bottom line. For instance, Google has projected that losing the Safari default would result in a significant drop in queries and billions of dollars in lost revenues.”
This ruling is the first major decision in a series of cases targeting alleged monopolies within Big Tech.
The case, initiated by the Trump administration, was heard from September to November of the previous year.
Emarketer senior analyst Evelyn Mitchell-Wolf remarked that a forced divestiture of the search business would cut Alphabet off from its largest revenue source, and losing its ability to secure exclusive default agreements could be detrimental for Google. She also noted that a prolonged legal process would delay any immediate consumer impact.
Over the past four years, federal antitrust regulators have also pursued legal action against Meta Platforms, Amazon.com, and Apple for allegedly maintaining illegal monopolies. These cases were all initiated during former President Donald Trump’s administration.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee, emphasized the bipartisan support for antitrust enforcement shown by the case’s continuation across different administrations. “It’s a huge victory for the American people that antitrust enforcement is alive and well when it comes to competition,” she said. “Google is a rampant monopolist.”
When filed in 2020, the Google search case was the first time in a generation that the US government accused a major corporation of maintaining an illegal monopoly. Microsoft had previously settled with the Justice Department in 2004 over claims that it forced its Internet Explorer browser on Windows users.
About Author
