In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has intensified its focus on Big Tech, aiming to curtail the unprecedented power that companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, and Meta have accumulated.[1] The regulatory crackdown comes as part of a broader global movement where governments, particularly in Europe and the U.S., are enacting laws and bringing lawsuits to rein in tech giants.[2] The overarching concern is that these “handful of tech companies” hinder free and fair competition through their control of vast sectors of the digital economy, including online search, social media, digital advertising, and e-commerce.[3]
Amidst this regulatory wave, Google has emerged as a prime target. In August of this year, Google lost its landmark search monopoly case against the DOJ after a federal judge found that the tech giant had built a monopoly in the general search services market.[4] Just one month after the decision, Google found itself in a second antitrust battle with the DOJ – this time over its digital advertising technology (“ad-tech”).[5] These two decisions will likely have significant implications for the future regulatory framework governing Big Tech and reshape how tech companies operate in the U.S.[6]
Search Engine Case
The search engine antitrust case against Google was presided over by Judge Amit Mehta of the D.C. District Court.[7] The core of the DOJ’s case against Google’s search engine business revolves around its monopolistic control of nearly 90% of the search services market.[8]
In his decision, Judge Mehta concluded that Google violated antitrust laws by striking exclusive agreements with device manufacturers such as Apple and Samsung.[9] Under these deals, Google paid billions of dollars to ensure its search engine remained the default option on Google phones and tablets.[10] The trial revealed that in 2022 alone, Google paid more than $20 billion to companies like Apple to maintain its default status in browsers such as Safari.[11] According to Judge Mehta, these agreements enabled Google to solidify its monopoly in the search market by manipulating text ad auctions to “raise prices for text ads without any meaningful competitive restraint.”[12]
Because the DOJ did not request specific penalties during the trial, Judge Mehta will hold a separate trial to determine appropriate actions.[13] This could range from restricting Google’s default search agreements to breaking up the company.[14] One likely outcome is a ban on Google’s multibillion-dollar deals with companies like Apple and Samsung to secure default status for its search engine, though manufacturers could still choose Google as the default.[15] Another option is a “choice screen” setting similar to Europe’s Digital Markets Act to allow users to select their preferred search engine.[16] The most severe remedy could involve breaking up Google by separating its search business from other divisions.[17] However, according to Cornell law professor Erik Hovenkamp, breakups are hardly practical due to the complexity of determining how exactly to divide a company.[18]
Ad-Tech Case
In addition to the search case, Google is facing another significant lawsuit related to its alleged monopoly over the digital advertising ecosystem. The DOJ argues that Google controls multiple key sectors of the ad-tech infrastructure, allowing it to stifle competition and impose monopoly pricing on publishers and advertisers.[19] As such, Google’s behavior harms competition and drives up costs for advertisers and publishers.[20] Google has countered that the ad-tech market remains competitive and that its innovations have made online advertising more efficient.[21] The ad-tech lawsuit is set to go to trial in 2025.[22]
Here, the DOJ is pursuing specific remedies that seek to force Google to break up parts of its business. The DOJ has asked the court to order Google to divest its publisher ad server, and its dominant ad exchange, along with any additional structural remedies needed to address anticompetitive harm in the ad-tech market.[23] The DOJ argues that the anticompetitive issues stem from Google’s control over the entire ad-tech infrastructure – encompassing ad buying, ad selling, and the exchange where transactions occur – making these lines of business easily separable to promote fair competition..[24] However, behavioral restrictions would still be necessary to prevent Google from reestablishing its anticompetitive practices through contractual agreements, rather than through direct ownership.[25]
Conclusion
The current battle between Google and the DOJ marks a watershed moment in U.S. antitrust law. With potential remedies ranging from financial penalties to breaking up parts of Google’s business, the outcome of these cases could fundamentally alter the structure of the digital economy and the role of tech giants within it. The DOJ’s case against Google is a test of how far regulators are willing to go to dismantle monopolistic practices in the digital age, and its results will set a precedent for future antitrust actions against other tech behemoths.
[1] See Cecilia Kang & David McCabe, U.S. Antitrust Case Against Google Is Just the Start, The New York Times (Oct. 3, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/technology/google-apple-amazon-meta-antitrust.html.
[2] See Adam Satariano & David McCabe, Forced to Change: Tech Giants Bow to Global Onslaught of Rules, The New York Times (Mar. 4, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/technology/europe-apple-meta-google-microsoft.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20241015&instance_id=13; see also Madhavi Singh, Antitrust Alone Cannot Solve the Big Tech Problem, Promarket (Aug. 12, 2024), https://www.promarket.org/2024/08/12/antitrust-alone-cannot-solve-the-big-tech-problem/.
[3] See id.
[4] See Nick Robins-Early, A US Judge Ruled That Google Built An Illegal Monopoly. What Happens Next?, The Guardian (Aug. 6, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/06/google-antitrust-monopoly-ruling.
[5] See Nick Robins-Early, Google’s Second Antitrust Suit Brought by US Begins, Over Online Ads, The Guardian (Sep. 9, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/06/google-antitrust-monopoly-ruling.
[6] See Mark MacCarthy, Google’s Antitrust Troubles Demonstrate the Need for A Digital Regulator, Brookings (Sept. 30, 2024), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/googles-antitrust-troubles-demonstrate-the-need-for-a-digital-regulator/.
[7] See United States v. Google LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138798, at *26 (D.D.C. 2024).
[8] Id.
[9] See Robins-Early, supra note 4.
[10] See id.
[11] See MacCarthy, supra note 6.
[12] Id.
[13] See Robins-Early, supra note 4.
[14] See id.
[15] See id.
[16] See id.
[17] See id.
[18] See Dave Michaels & Jan Wolfe, Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Antitrust Officials Weigh Splitting Google, Others, The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 8, 2024), https://www.wsj.com/tech/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do-antitrust-officials-weigh-splitting-google-others-712bba46?mod=djem10point.
[19] See MacCarthy, supra note 6.
[20] See Robins-Early, supra note 5.
[21] See Kang & McCabe, supra note 1.
[22] See MacCarthy, supra note 6.
[23] See id.
[24] See id.
[25] See id.
