Following a nine-week bench trial and closing arguments in May 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google illegally maintained its monopoly in markets for general search services and general search text advertisements in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[1] The case was initially brought in 2020 when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 30+ state attorney generals sued Google, alleging that it unlawfully used distribution agreements to stifle competition and maintain its monopoly position in online search and advertising markets.[2]

The ruling marks a significant shift in how technology giants are regulated. While simply having a monopoly is not illegal under U.S. law[3], the court found that Google crossed a legal line by leveraging its dominant market position to maintain and extend its monopoly power.[4]

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the cornerstone of U.S. antitrust law, prohibits business practices that unreasonably restrict competition in interstate commerce. This landmark legislation was designed to prevent monopolies from stifling market competition and remains the foundation for regulating anti-competitive behavior.[5]

The Google case represents the most significant antitrust trial since 1998, when Microsoft faced similar Justice Department scrutiny.[6] In that landmark case, Microsoft was accused of bundling its products in ways that forced consumers to use its software while limiting competitors’ access to the market.[7]

In the past 25 years, technology companies have grown into economic powerhouses that are deeply woven into everyday life. Google’s dominance is particularly striking – its parent company Alphabet has reached a market value exceeding $2 trillion, and “google” has become a verb for searching the internet itself[8]—“I just googled it.” Google dominates the U.S. search engine market with approximately 90% market share, dwarfing its nearest rivals Bing and Yahoo, which each hold roughly 3% of the market.

The District Court Google’s case into two parts: first, deciding if Google broke antitrust laws, and second, determining the punishment.

The government’s argument centered on Google’s distribution agreements with major device manufacturers like Apple and Samsung. Google paid these companies massive sums—$26.3 billion in 2021 alone—to set Google as the default search engine on their devices. Apple received the largest share, collecting $18 billion in 2021 according to the New York Times. Google also made similar arrangements with web browsers like Safari and Firefox.[9]

While users can technically change their default search engine, the Court found that even this minor inconvenience—what economists call “choice friction”—was enough to deter most people from switching. Google’s own economists confirmed this behavior, and the Court concluded that this strategic use of default settings helped Google secure and maintain its search monopoly.[10]

“In 2009, 80% of all search queries in the United States went through Google. That number has only grown. By 2020, it was nearly 90%, and even higher on mobile device at almost 95%. The second-place search engine, Microsoft’s Bing, sees roughly 6% of all search queries—84% fewer than Google.”[11]

During live testimony at trial, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said Google has gone unchecked for too long. “You get up in the morning, you brush your teeth and you search on Google,” Nadella said at one point in his testimony. “Everybody talks about the open web, but there is really the Google web.”[12]

The government also alleged that Google overcharged for its search text ads— the sponsored results that appear to be regular search results. Because Google dominated the search advertising market, it could charge higher prices than would be possible in a truly competitive market. The government pointed to these inflated advertising rates as further proof of Google’s monopoly power.[13]

Google defended itself by arguing that its market dominance comes from having a superior product, not unfair practices. The company said it invests heavily in improving its search engine and making ads more relevant to users. Google also challenged the idea that it’s too hard for new companies to enter the search market. As evidence, it pointed to emerging competitors, new AI technology, and its own history – reminding the court that Google itself rose to prominence in a market once dominated by companies like Yahoo.[14]

The Court found that Google’s distribution deals unfairly block competition.[15] These deals prevent other search engines from reaching enough users to be viable competitors and discourage companies from investing in general search technology. Judge Mehta’s 286-page decision was clear: “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”[16]

The Court rejected Google’s defense of its exclusive contracts, saying Google could get the same benefits through non-exclusive deals without hurting competition.[17] The Court also dismissed Google’s claim that it’s easy for new companies to enter the search market, pointing out how expensive it is to build and run a search engine. Finally, the Court agreed that Google overcharges for search ads and uses this extra money to pay for exclusive deals that strengthen its control of the market.[18]

Google plans to fight back with its global head of global affairs, Kent Walker, commenting that “this decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available.”[19]

The timing is complex, however. Judge Mehta will hold remedy hearings in March and plans to decide on penalties by August 2025.[20] However, Google can’t appeal until after the remedies are set. According to Cornell law professor George Hay, a former DOJ antitrust chief economist, the appeals could take years.[21] The parties might settle earlier (like Microsoft did in its 2000s browser case), but experts think both sides are ready to take this to the Supreme Court if needed.

The penalties could be as mild as changing how Google does business or as severe as forcing Google to sell parts of its company.

In October, the government suggested several options[22]: limiting Google’s AI web scraping for search results, stopping Google’s billion-dollar payments to be the default search engine on devices like iPhones, forcing Chrome’s sale, requiring Google to share search results with competitors, ending its Safari default status, and possibly separating Android from Google. Government lawyers argue these steps are needed because Google’s long-term control of key distribution channels has discouraged competition:

“For more than a decade, Google has controlled the most popular distribution channels, leaving rivals with little-to-no incentive to compete for users,” the antitrust enforcers wrote in the filing. “Fully remedying these harms requires not only ending Google’s control of distribution today, but also ensuring Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow.”[23]

Google strongly opposes these proposals. Kent Walker claims the DOJ’s “extreme proposal would endanger the security and privacy of millions of Americans, and undermine the quality of products people love, by forcing the sale of Chrome and potentially Android.” Instead, Google suggests milder changes: temporarily stopping exclusive default search deals, giving browsers more freedom to use other search engines, and loosening requirements for device makers to pre-install certain Google apps, like its Gemini Assistant App. They would also let Apple promote alternative search engines yearly.[24]

It is important to note, Google’s counterproposal did not even mention the court’s antitrust concerns. DuckDuckGo, Google’s rival competitor, criticized these suggestions as too weak to make real change.[25]

As the tech world awaits the next steps in this landmark case, this ruling strengthens the federal government’s broader push against Big Tech dominance. The DOJ is currently challenging Apple over smartphone monopoly claims and has a separate case against Google regarding ad market competition.[26] The FTC is also pursuing Amazon over online retail dominance[27] and Meta over its Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions[28]. Meanwhile, AI’s growing role in online markets is drawing increased attention from antitrust regulators.[29]

This ruling could fundamentally reshape the internet search landscape. If the court’s remedies are substantial, users might see more diverse search options on their devices instead of Google by default. Companies like Bing, Yahoo!, and DuckDuckGo could finally gain the market access they need to become serious competitors. Judge Mehta’s decision on remedies this summer will be crucial, and Google’s likely appeal could make this a defining antitrust battle for years to come as it moves through higher courts.

[1] United States v. Google LLC, 2024 WL 3647498 (D.D.C., 2024)

[2] https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/08/alerts-technology-antc-google-is-an-illegal-monopoly-federal-court-rules

[3] https://www.npr.org/2024/10/09/nx-s1-5146006/justice-department-sanctions-google-search-engine-lawsuit#:~:text=This%20is%20a%20major%20turning,ripple%20effect%20throughout%20the%20industry

[4] United States v. Google LLC, 2024 WL 3647498 (D.D.C., 2024)

[5] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws#:~:text=Congress%20passed%20the%20first%20antitrust%20law%2C%20the,as%20the%20rule%20of%20trade.%22%20In%201914%2C

[6] https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact

[7] https://www.npr.org/2024/10/09/nx-s1-5146006/justice-department-sanctions-google-search-engine-lawsuit#:~:text=This%20is%20a%20major%20turning,ripple%20effect%20throughout%20the%20industry

[8] Id.

[9] https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/08/alerts-technology-antc-google-is-an-illegal-monopoly-federal-court-rules

[10] Id.

[11] United States v. Google LLC, 2024 WL 3647498 (D.D.C., 2024)

[12] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/02/technology/microsoft-ceo-testifies-google-search.html

[13] https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/08/alerts-technology-antc-google-is-an-illegal-monopoly-federal-court-rules

[14] Id.

[15] https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/08/alerts-technology-antc-google-is-an-illegal-monopoly-federal-court-rules

[16] United States v. Google LLC, 2024 WL 3647498 (D.D.C., 2024)

[17] Id.

[18] https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/08/alerts-technology-antc-google-is-an-illegal-monopoly-federal-court-rules

[19] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/technology/google-apple-search-spotlight.html?partner=slack&smid=sl-share

[20] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/06/google-search-monopoly-trial-remedies-schedule/

[21] https://news.cornell.edu/media-relations/tip-sheets/fierce-fight-looms-doj-v-google-not-open-and-shut-case

[22] https://apnews.com/article/google-search-antitrust-case-59114d8bf1dc4c8453c08acaa4051f14

[23] https://www.newsweek.com/us-court-could-break-google-monopoly-1966198

[24] https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/google-antitrust-lawsuit-doj-chrome-remedies-proposals-124122500175_1.html

[25] Id.

[26] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/antitrust-google-amazon-apple-meta.html#:~:text=in%20our%20store.”-,Apple,will%20vigorously%20defend%20against%20it.”

[27] https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/unpacking-the-implications-of-the-ftcs-antitrust-case-against-amazon-for-online-marketplace-competition/#:~:text=About%20the%20Case,trial%20scheduled%20for%20October%202026.

[28] https://www.reuters.com/technology/meta-faces-april-trial-ftc-case-seeking-unwind-instagram-merger-2024-11-25/#:~:text=The%20FTC%20sued%20in%202020,13%20ruling.

[29] https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/08/alerts-technology-antc-google-is-an-illegal-monopoly-federal-court-rules