Charles Esther
Google and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have entered a crucial phase in their high-stakes antitrust battle.
This week marks the start of a three-week-long hearing in Washington, DC, to determine the consequences of Google’s dominance in the online search market.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who previously ruled that Google violated antitrust laws by maintaining a monopoly in the search engine space, will now decide what remedies the tech giant must face.
Billions at Stake as Exclusive Deals Come Under Fire
The DOJ is pushing for sweeping changes that could reshape Google’s business forever.
One major target is Google’s multibillion-dollar deals with companies like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla that make Google the default search engine on smartphones and browsers.
Experts widely agree that Judge Mehta will likely end these agreements, which the DOJ argues are at the heart of Google’s monopolistic behavior.
In 2021 alone, Google paid over $26 billion for these default placements—$20 billion of that went to Apple.
During the 2023 trial, Judge Mehta questioned why Google would pay such sums if it didn’t help the company lock in users.
DOJ Calls for Chrome and Android Breakup
The DOJ is not stopping at contracts.
Its proposal includes forcing Google to sell off its Chrome browser and possibly break up its Android mobile operating system if competition doesn’t increase.
These remedies, described by experts as extreme, reflect the DOJ’s strategy to not just fix past misconduct but also prevent future monopolistic dominance.
However, some experts warn that such drastic actions could face significant legal challenges on appeal.
Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, said that requiring Google to divest Chrome would be the “worst case scenario” for the company.
Divestitures are considered a strong medicine in antitrust law, and judges tend to use them sparingly.
Behavioral Changes More Likely Than Full Breakup
While divestiture remains on the table, many antitrust experts believe that a more likely outcome is a behavioral remedy.
This would force Google to revise its agreements with other tech companies and change how it conducts business in the search market.
Allensworth believes that such a solution would likely involve ending exclusive contracts, though the exact nature of that change remains unclear.
Shubha Ghosh, a law professor at Syracuse University, noted that the more severe the remedy, the more likely it is to be overturned on appeal.
DOJ Warns of Google’s Growing AI Power
Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist warned the court not to overlook Google’s current expansion into artificial intelligence.
He argued that Google is using the same monopolistic tactics it used in search to dominate the AI market, particularly with its Gemini AI chatbot.
He urged the court to implement remedies that are forward-looking to ensure fair competition in emerging technologies.
Google Pushes Back, Calls Proposal a ‘Wish List’
Google is fiercely defending itself.
In an opening statement, the company’s attorney John Schmidtlein dismissed the DOJ’s proposed remedies as a “wish list for competitors.”
He said the proposals would allow rivals to gain access to Google’s innovations and trade secrets without earning them.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, echoed this in a blog post, calling the DOJ’s plan harmful, unnecessary, and damaging to user privacy, innovation, and AI development.
What Happens Next
Judge Mehta is expected to rule on the remedies by the end of summer 2025.
Google has already indicated it will appeal any ruling that imposes significant restrictions or structural changes.
That means the final resolution to this case could still be years away.
But whatever the outcome, the stakes are high—not just for Google, but for the future of internet competition, user choice, and the evolving AI race.
