US Court Rules Google a Monopoly in 'Biggest Antitrust Case of the 21st Century'

A federal judge left no room for ambiguity Monday in a landmark ruling in a case brought by the Justice Department and states against tech giant Google, in which the government argued the company had illegally monopolized the search engine and advertising market.

"Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," said Judge Amit Mehta, who sits of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In U.S. et al. v. Google, Mehta found that Google has "violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining its monopoly in two product markets in the United States—general services and general text advertising—through its exclusive distribution agreements."

The American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) called the ruling a "tremendous win for consumers, innovation, and the entire tech industry."

During a 10-week trial last year, the DOJ argued Google had used exclusionary contracts to block its competitors from reaching potential users. The company's deals with web firms such as Mozilla and cell phone companies like Apple and Samsung have made Google the default search engine on millions of people's phones and computers, as has its contracts with other major tech firms and service providers.

The trial revealed that Google shares 36% of its search ad revenues from Safari with Apple and paid the company $20 billion in 2022 to ensure Google's search engine would have default status for Apple customers.

While paying billions of dollars per year to maintain its default status, Google has been using its dominance over ad space to collect more data about users and improve its search engine, while its rivals have been cut off from that ad space.

"If that's what it takes for somebody to dislodge Google as the default search engine, wouldn't the folks that wrote the Sherman Act be concerned about it?" asked Mehta.

The Justice Department proved to the court that Google had ensured its search engine would conduct nearly 90% of all web searches.

Vanderbilt University law professor Rebecca Haw Allensworth told The New York Times the ruling represents "a very prominent test of the Biden administration's new antitrust enforcement agenda."

The DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have also sued Apple, Meta, and Amazon for monopolizing the smartphone, social media, and online selling markets.

William Kovacic, former chairman of the FTC, told the Times in June that a victory against Google would create "momentum that supports [the government's] other cases."

U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) was among those who applauded the ruling, saying the unfair practices Mehta outlined "are the exact behaviors that hurt consumers, competition, and small businesses."

Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at AELP, said the ruling "strikes at the core of how hundreds of millions of Americans experience the internet."

"It illustrates how Google has become one of the most powerful companies in the world while undermining innovation and degrading the quality of its core product," said Hepner. "The remedy must match the court's striking verdict in this case. At a minimum that means an end to Google's exclusive default agreements and breaking up business lines that have allowed Google to extend its monopoly into every corner of the internet."

Google is expected to appeal Mehta's decision, but as it faces another antitrust case brought by the DOJ over its advertising technology business—set to go to trial September 9—AELP interim executive director Nidhi Hegde expressed hope that Monday's ruling "sends a resounding signal that the antimonopoly movement is here to stay."

"The promise of antitrust enforcement is that it will fully restore competition where it has been lost," said Hepner, "and we'll be advocating that the court use all of its power to do so."