In what may be a landmark case, the U.S. government is considering an antitrust remedy to break up Google as part of a big court ruling that finds the company guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly in online search.
The case, in essence, centers on Google’s monopolistic control of the search engine market, with nearly 90% of internet searches conducted in the United States. In August 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google has been using its dominant position to quash competition and stifle innovation by violating antitrust laws.
The DOJ offered a number of possible remedies, the most dramatic being separation: break up Google into smaller, independent entities. This would involve the divestment of key assets—the Android operating system and Chrome browser—all of which have been seen as central tools that allow Google to continue retaining its grip on search.
The DOJ is targeting the search business of Google but is also looking at its advertising practices. Another area that also raises an eyebrow is Google’s cooperation with third-party companies, such as Apple, where several billion dollars is committed to ensure that Google’s search engine remains the default option on devices. Following these revelations, the DOJ called for the prohibition or heavy regulations of such agreements.
The breakup will be the first forced on the United States government over a major corporation in decades, assuming the court eventually agrees to the DOJ’s proposal. The last time any case aimed at breaking up a major technology company was filed was in the 1990s against Microsoft, when similar complaints were lodged, though that case eventually ended with a settlement and not with a breakup.
Of course, Google pushed back against the ruling and the DOJ’s proposals, calling the talks “radical” and warning that consumers could be harmed. The company said its services—many of which are free save its ubiquitous search engine—help consumers, and competition in the tech industry remains robust.
Critics, however, view this situation as an outlet for Google to dominate the market and throw unfair barriers up for other businesses to place, a limitation on consumer choice, and virtually charge higher rates for advertisements. According to the critics, with Google’s size combined with its reach, the platform presents a dangerous advantage through a capacity to collect virtually unparalleled amounts of data into a digital advertising marketplace in which it is impossible for competitors to grow.
This case fits into an even bigger trend whereby global technology companies are being held accountable because of their market power. For instance, the European Union has already heavily penalized Google for its antitrust violations, primarily those related to search and Android operating system practices. So this U.S. case would set precedent and perhaps influence other jurisdictions to do the same.
Breaking up Google would have huge reverberations into the tech world. It would clear some room for smaller competitors, paving the way toward a market that is diverse and highly competitive. In the meantime, breaking up such a large company as Google would be complex, potentially showing its ripple effects on everything from consumer services to global supply chains.
However, remedies in a trial set for next spring will determine the specifics of remedies, which a court has yet to decide it wants. The thrust of this trail will be on finding how best to restore competition in the online search market, and no one company should be able to dominate the internet as perfectly as Google does at present.
The result of this case will probably alter the face of the tech industry for years to come, as it determines whether governments around the world have any power to keep down the might of Internet giants like Google. As this landmark case progresses, the tech community is among the avid observers who are keenly watching how it will unravel.
