US Judge Mehta to provide findings in Google’s antitrust trial in August

• The trial, which has entered its remedies phase, follows Judge Mehta’s initial finding that Google unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the markets for “general search” and “general search text” advertisements, the lucrative ads displayed atop search result pages.
• Should the court endorse the DoJ’s sweeping remedies, Google may be compelled to divest, share proprietary data, and reshape core contractual relationships, fundamentally disrupting the digital search order.

Google’s vast search empire stands at a critical crossroads as US District Judge Amit Mehta prepares to deliver a landmark ruling in the company’s ongoing antitrust trial in August.

The proceedings centre on whether Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet, should be subjected to structural changes aimed at dismantling its dominant position in the online search market—an industry pillar that has fueled the company’s immense profitability and shaped global digital behavior.

The trial, which has entered its remedies phase, follows Judge Mehta’s initial finding that Google unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the markets for “general search” and “general search text” advertisements, the lucrative ads displayed atop search result pages.

The Department of Justice (DoJ) has pressed for transformative remedies, including forcing Google to divest its Chrome browser, sharing its proprietary search data with competitors, and abolishing exclusivity agreements that guarantee Google as the default search engine on numerous devices and browsers.

Such measures, the DoJ argues, are essential to restore competitive balance in the digital search and advertising ecosystem.

Altering business architecture

Google has adamantly opposed these proposals, contending that the DoJ’s remedies are excessively severe and will disproportionately benefit rivals such as Microsoft Bing, potentially raising costs for device manufacturers and, by extension, consumers.

The company has also indicated plans to appeal the antitrust violation ruling, a process that could prolong resolution by several years. Nevertheless, the stakes are unprecedented: Google’s Chrome browser, the most widely used web browser worldwide largely due to its integration with Android smartphones, acts as a critical conduit connecting users to Google’s search services.

Compelling Google to relinquish control of Chrome or terminate exclusivity contracts, such as the lucrative $20 billion-per-year deal with Apple to remain the default search engine on Safari, would fundamentally alter Google’s business architecture and revenue streams, while concurrently impacting major technology partners.

This trial is not Google’s sole antitrust challenge. A parallel case overseen by Judge Leonie Brinkema focuses on Google’s dominance in the online advertising technology sector.

Intensified scrutiny

The DoJ successfully demonstrated Google’s monopolistic conduct concerning publisher ad servers and ad exchanges for display advertising, though it failed to prove a relevant market for advertising networks, a key component of its broader case.

Together, these legal battles signify intensified scrutiny of Google’s multifaceted influence over digital advertising and search.

Beyond legal frameworks, the rapidly evolving landscape of generative artificial intelligence (AI) introduces further complexity to the discourse on search competition.

Google’s lawsuit was initiated in 2020, before the advent of generative AI technologies exemplified by ChatGPT. This paradigm shift has given rise to new competitors such as ChatGPT Search, Perplexity, and Anthropic’s Claude.

Mitigating monopoly concerns

Industry insiders have observed a decline in traditional search queries within Safari, attributing this trend to an increasing preference among users for AI-driven search experiences.

Google, however, reports continued growth across its platforms, including those on iOS devices, underscoring the persistent dominance of its search offerings despite emerging alternatives.

Judge Mehta’s impending decision, expected in August, will be pivotal in determining the future configuration of Google’s search business and the broader digital marketplace.

Should the court endorse the DoJ’s sweeping remedies, Google may be compelled to divest, share proprietary data, and reshape core contractual relationships, fundamentally disrupting the digital search order.

Such an outcome would signal a paradigm shift in antitrust enforcement against Big Tech, emphasising structural interventions over behavioural remedies.

Conversely, a more measured ruling could preserve Google’s integrated model, anticipating that innovation and competition—propelled in part by AI advancements—may sufficiently mitigate monopoly concerns.