In a landmark legal decision against a major tech giant, a federal judge has ruled that Google unlawfully monopolized the online search and advertising markets by paying billions annually to companies like Apple and Samsung to make Google the default search engine on smartphones and web browsers.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta found that Google’s practices of dominating search queries on these devices stifled competition and harmed consumers. In his 286-page ruling, Judge Mehta stated, “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” The ruling highlights that Google’s substantial revenue, which exceeds $300 billion annually, largely comes from search ads.
This significant ruling could drastically alter Google’s business operations and impact how people search for information online. It represents a major victory for the Department of Justice (DOJ), which initiated the antitrust case during the final weeks of the Trump administration and has continued its aggressive stance against Big Tech under the Biden administration.
Attorney General Merrick Garland hailed the decision as a historic win for the American people, asserting, “No company – no matter how large or influential – is above the law.”
Legal experts, including Notre Dame Law School professor Roger Alford, view the ruling as a pivotal moment in antitrust enforcement, comparable in importance to the Microsoft antitrust case of the 1990s. Googe has announced its intention to appeal the decision. Kent Walker, Googl’s president of global affairs, criticized the ruling, arguing that it overlooks the company’s ability to offer the best search engine and suggests it shouldn’t be readily accessible.
Following the decision, shares in parent company, Alphabet, dropped nearly 5%, reflecting a broader tech stock decline. If upheld, the ruling could significantly influence other ongoing antitrust cases against major tech companies like Amazon, Apple, and Meta.
The court has yet to determine remedies for Goole’s practices, which may include banning exclusive contracts that reinforce its market dominance. Loyola University Chicago School of Law professor Spencer Weber Waller emphasized that the remedy will be crucial in restoring competition, noting that the court might order to end its exclusive agreements rather than imposing fines.
Google argues that its distribution deals are standard industry practice, likening them to promotional strategies used by food manufacturers. The company contends that users prefer Gogle and can switch their default search engine if they choose.
During the trial, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified that s dominance had created a “ web,” implying that presence is so pervasive that it shapes the online experience. Nadella expressed concern that Microsoft’s competitive disadvantage would worsen as AI becomes integral to search.
Baird Equity Research senior analyst Colin Sebastian noted that despite Microsoft’s various strategies to increase Bing’s market share, including financial incentives and integrations with Office, remains the preferred choice for most users.
Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich criticized the ruling for potentially benefiting Microsoft rather than consumers, stating, “The biggest winner from today’s ruling isn’t consumers or small tech, it’s Microsoft.” Kovacevich argued that the ruling might lead to mandatory default deals for Bing, which he sees as unfair to consumers who prefer .
