Midweek Menu

• 📱 Apple pays $95M over eavesdropping — privacy standards questioned.

• 🔍 Microsoft closes biggest gaming deal — gaming landscape reshaped.

• 🤖 DOJ targets Google’s search monopoly — competition at a crossroads.

• 🧠 Regulators eye Big Tech closely — tighter rules expected soon.

The Laboratory

How Google’s search monopoly landed it in the DOJ’s crosshairs

Google’s dominance in the search and advertising business is enough to evoke envy in even the biggest companies in the world. The company’s journey from a dorm room in Stanford to its current address in Mountain View, California, has been meteoric, to say the least. It has achieved the level of success that every new company entering the tech space would want to emulate.

However, emulating a giant like Google is not easy, and if the U.S. government is to be believed, the job has been made even more difficult because the company maintained an unlawful monopoly in the search and advertising markets through exclusionary agreements and practices.

These allegations leveled against Google by the Department of Justice have led to one of the biggest lawsuits in the U.S. since the antitrust cases against Microsoft in the 1990s.

Let us take a closer look at how the case has shaped up for Google, and whether the company can come out of it unscathed.

How Google became the default search engine?

In the early days, Google outperformed competitors like Yahoo and Microsoft through the use of its PageRank algorithm. This algorithm prioritized web pages based on their relevance and the number of backlinks, delivering more accurate search results than competitors. However, this was just the stepping stone for the company’s success.

At the company grew, strategic partnerships solidified Google’s dominance. By securing default search engine status on popular browsers and devices such as Apple’s Safari and Android smartphones, Google ensured a steady influx of users. These deals meant that users often didn’t need to actively choose Google, it was already their default option.

Acquisitions played a pivotal role in expanding Google’s ecosystem. The purchase of YouTube in 2006 allowed Google to dominate video content, while the acquisition of Android in 2005 positioned it at the forefront of the mobile revolution. In 2007, acquiring DoubleClick enhanced its advertising capabilities, enabling more targeted and efficient ad placements.

However, the acquisitions and partnerships though beneficial to the company were seen as monopolistic by regulators resulting in legal action.

Inside the DOJ’s case

The DOJ first filed its civil lawsuit against Google in October 2020. In the lawsuit—joined by 11 states, Google was accused of “maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets.”

The lawsuit termed Google a “monopoly gatekeeper” that had entered into a series of exclusionary agreements that collectively locked up the primary avenues through which users access search engines.

The DOJ also accused Google of:

• Entering into exclusive agreements that forbade preinstallation of services from competitors.

• Entering into agreements that forced preinstallation of its search applications and made them undeletable on mobile devices.

• Entering into a long-term agreement with Apple that ensured Google would be the default search engine on its products.

• Using monopoly products to buy preferential treatment for its search engine on devices, web browsers, and other search access points.

The DOJ alleged that Google’s anticompetitive practices had harmful effects on both competition and consumers. During the trial, Google argued that its dominance was due to consumer choice and the superiority of its products and that its practices benefited users and did not curtail competition.

The ruling: Google operated as an unlawful monopoly

The ruling in the case was delivered by Judge Amit Mehta who agreed with the DOJ, stating that Google acted as a monopolist in the internet search space.

The judge also concluded that Google had created a feedback loop between the monopolization of internet search and increased ad revenue, which allowed the company to hike up digital ad prices and further dominate the market.

This was the first ruling of a bifurcated trial, meaning that the finding of liability would be followed by a process to determine what remedies should be applied.

The proposed remedies

The initial proposed remedies included asking Google to share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers to be the default search engine on new devices.

The proposed remedies also included the possible divestment of Google’s Chrome and Android businesses.

However, by May 2025, a federal judge proposed less aggressive ways to restore online search competition than the 10-year regime suggested by antitrust enforcers.

Google, meanwhile, said it would appeal the decision.

Google’s legal troubles don’t end here

The first antitrust case against Google was filed by the DOJ, but it was not the only one.

A second antitrust case was filed against Google by a 10-state group led by the Texas Attorney General. This case focused on Google’s far-reaching control over digital advertising, alleging that the company was controlling nearly the entire supply chain by facilitating transactions for both advertisers and website publishers which, in effect, created a feedback loop where its dominance in search boosted its digital ad revenue, allowing it to further consolidate its control over the market.

Another case was filed against Google by the Attorneys General of Nebraska and Colorado and included a coalition of over 30 states.

In addition to the allegations leveled by the DOJ, the state coalition argued that Google used its monopoly over internet search to actively discriminate against vertical search companies like Tripadvisor, DoorDash, Kayak, and Yelp.

Why this case matters beyond Google

The Department of Justice’s case against Google isn’t just about one company’s market dominance, it’s a defining moment for the broader tech industry. At its core, the lawsuit questions how much control a single platform should wield over the digital economy, and whether such dominance stifles innovation, restricts consumer choice, and harms competitors unfairly.

If the court enforces meaningful remedies, it could signal a turning point in how regulators deal with Big Tech. Other tech giants like Amazon, Apple, and Meta are also under scrutiny for potential antitrust violations, and the outcome of Google’s trial could set legal and political precedents that shape those cases. A ruling that curtails Google’s practices might embolden regulators to pursue more aggressive actions across the board, particularly in areas such as app store policies, advertising, and user data control.

Startups and smaller tech firms are watching closely, too. If the DOJ succeeds in loosening Google’s grip, it could open up opportunities for emerging players to compete more fairly, possibly leading to greater innovation and diversity in digital services.

Wednesday Poll

Vote now and we’ll share results Thursday.

Quick Hits

• Default isn’t destiny... or is it?
  Google’s billion-dollar deals made it the default search engine — now regulators say that’s exactly the problem.

• One algorithm to rule them all.
  From PageRank to power broker, Google’s rise shows how tech brilliance and business muscle can blur into monopoly.

• A browser deal a day keeps the competition away.
  Long-term agreements with Apple and Android made Google unavoidable — now antitrust lawyers want to undo that autopilot.

Brain Snack for the Builders

Meme of the Day

Rate this edition