Monopoly or Merit? Why Google Faced the Biggest Tech Trial in Decades

Imagine a world where one company controls nearly all the information you find online. In many ways, we live in that world today. Google, the tech giant synonymous with search, handles billions of queries a day and amasses data from Youtube, Android Maps, and more. This treasure trove of data helps Google continually improve its services and attract even more users, a self-reinforcing cycle that competitors can’t easily match. Regulators call this ‘data dominance,’ and they worry it is giving Google an almost unbeatable advantage. Now, Google’s dominance is under the legal spotlight. In a landmark U.S. antitrust trial, the Department of Justice (DOJ) accused Google of abusing its monopoly power in online search and advertising. The trial has been closely watched around the world, seen as a test of whether one company’s control over data and access can unfairly choke competition. 

The case formally began in October 2020, when the DOJ (joined by attorneys general from several states) sued Google under federal antitrust laws. The heart of the government’s case was that Google illegally maintained its monopoly in general search. The DOJ argued that Google used unfair tactics to stay number one, especially through exclusive deals that entrenched its search engine as the default choice for most consumers. 

The case went to trial in September 2023 in a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C., presided over by Judge Amit Mehta. It was often described as the biggest U.S. monopoly trial in tech since Microsoft’s in the 1990s. 

One of the most prominent accusations was that Google struck massive agreements to be the default search engine on a wide array of devices and browsers. For example, Google pays Apple and other companies huge sums each year (reportedly in the double-digit billions) to ensure Google Search is the preset option on iPhones and other popular search engines. DOJ lawyers said these default deals function as a powerful barrier against rivals, preventing alternative search engines such as Microsoft’s Bing or privacy-focused DuckDuckGo from having a fighting chance to reach users. “Defaults are powerful, scale matters and Google illegally maintained a monopoly for more than a decade,” DOJ attorney Kenneth Dintzer said in court. Google arrangements ‘froze out’ competing search providers. 

Another focus was Google’s conduct with its Android mobile operating system. Android runs the majority of the world’s smartphones. The DOJ pointed out that Google required Android device makers to pre-install Google’s own apps (like Search, Chrome, Youtube, etc.) and set Google as the default search engine, as a condition of licensing the Google Play app store. This bundling ensured Google’s search engine became the built-in choice on essentially all Android phones. Internal documents showed Google viewed “default status” on phones as hugely valuable and the DOJ argued the company went to great lengths to secure it. In one instance, Samsung tried launching a smartwatch using a custom OS, only to switch back after Google signaled it violated Android terms. The government’s contention was that Google’s tactics were not just aggressive business moves but anticompetitive barriers designed to lock out potential challengers. 

Google’s defense, on the other hand, painted a very different picture. The company insisted that its success isn’t due to any illegal scheming but because consumers genuinely prefer Google. Google’s lawyers noted that nothing prevents users from going to a different search engine if they truly wanted to. Any iPhone user can change their default to Bing, and any Android user can download an alternative search app. “Unhappy consumers…need just "a few easy clicks" to replace the Google app from their devices or … [open] Bing, Yahoo or DuckDuckGo in a browser to use an alternative search engine,” Google's lawyer John Schmidtlein said. Schmidtlein emphasized that people stick with Google by choice. Google also pointed out that it won its default position on merit. For instance, it was chosen as the iPhone’s default in part because Apple found Google to deliver the best user experience. Far from stifling competition, Google argued, the tech landscape is teeming with it. The company cited Amazon (where many users start product searches) and specialized services like Expedia or Yelp as alternative ways people find information. Even within search, Google’s attorneys suggested that competition was “one click away,” and warned that penalizing Google for its success could ultimately harm consumers. 

Over weeks of testimony, prosecutors presented evidence of Google executives fretting about losing default status and documents detailing the enormous payments to partners. One particularly eye-popping figure emerged: Google was paying Apple an estimated $18 billion in 2021 for the privilege of being the default search engine on Apple devices. (Google’s lead lawyer visibly cringed in court when an expert accidentally mentioned the confidential number.) The government argued such sums demonstrated a self-perpetuating monopoly, showing how valuable and anticompetitive these arrangements were: Google’s defaults perpetuate a ‘feedback loop’ that begets more users, more data, and even more dominance. 

By the end of 2024, Judge Mehta issued a verdict finding that Google had violated antitrust law, specifically, that it illegally monopolized the markets for general search services and search advertising. In other words, Google’s grip on search was deemed not just the product of having a great search engine, but of anti-competitive tactics that kept that grip strong. This ruling set the stage for a second phase focused on what to do about it. 

The ruling, delivered in September 2025, was a mix of strict measures and relief for Google. Judge Mehta ordered Google to open up some of its prized data and loosen its contracts, but stopped short of forcing a breakup. In his remedy opinion, Mehta barred Google from entering or enforcing exclusive search distribution agreements, meaning Google can no longer cut deals that outright prevent partners (like phone manufacturers or browser makers) from promoting or pre-loading rival search services. More dramatically, the judge required Google to share certain parts of its search data and technology with competitors. This data-sharing mandate aims to pry open Google’s ‘data monopoly’ by giving smaller search engines access to pieces of Google’s index and anonymized user query data. The main purpose is that if Bing, DuckDuckGo, or upstart AI search tools could tap into some of Google’s vast indexing of the web, they might be able to improve their own services and compete with Google. U.S. Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater hailed the decision as “an important step forward in the fight to protect American consumers,” saying it would “pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade.”

Crucially, however, Google won a reprieve on the most important proposals. Judge Mehta rejected calls to strip Google of key assets. Google won’t have to sell its Chrome browser, the judge ruled, nor divest control of the Android operating system. Mehta wrote that predicting the future of tech is “not exactly a judge’s forte,” and pointed to recent competition from AI chatbots as a reason for humility in crafting a remedy. Products like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, he noted, “pose a threat to the primacy of traditional internet search”, meaning Google’s dominance might already be under pressure from new technology. 

However, despite the decision, the legal fight is not over yet. Google quickly signaled it would appeal the verdict, a process that could take years and wind its way up to the Supreme Court. Until the appeal, many remedies (like data sharing) won’t be implemented immediately. Still, the trial and ruling have already made history. They mark the first major U.S. court judgment limiting a tech giant’s market power in a generation, settling a precedent that even the most dominant internet companies can be held accountable. As Attorney General Pamela Bondi put it, “This decision marks an important step… we will continue our legal efforts to hold companies accountable for monopolistic practices.” 

Sources

AdExchanger. "Closing Arguments Are Done in the U.S. v. Google Ad Tech Case." Accessed December 8, 2025. https://www.adexchanger.com/antitrust/closing-arguments-are-done-in-the-us-v-google-ad-tech-case/.

NPR. "Google Antitrust Ruling: The Future of AI." September 18, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/18/nx-s1-5539869/google-antitrust-ruling-future-of-ai.

The New York Times. "Google Ad Tech Closing." November 21, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/21/technology/google-ad-tech-closing.html.

Purdue Global Law School Blog. "Google Antitrust Case Landmark Ruling." Accessed December 8, 2025. https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/google-landmark-case.

Reuters. "US Takes Google to Much-Anticipated Antitrust Trial." September 12, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-takes-google-much-anticipated-antitrust-trial-2023-09-12/.

USA TODAY. "Google Antitrust Ruling: Advertising Technology." October 28, 2025. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/10/28/google-antitrust-ruling-advertising-technology/86950042007/.