SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Long given an effective pass for its anti-competitive behavior, the company is finally getting its comeuppance in federal court, and not a moment too soon.
Don’t look now, but the federal government just notched not one, but two, major antitrust victories against one of the biggest corporations on Earth.
In the past few decades, digital monopolists like Google have built far-reaching empires impacting almost every facet of our online lives. Long given an effective pass for its anti-competitive behavior, the company is finally getting its comeuppance in federal court, and not a moment too soon.
Back in 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Google for illegally monopolizing the search market. In 2023, this was followed by a second suit over the company’s digital advertising monopoly. In the first case, federal Judge Amit Mehta stated the obvious in his ruling that when it comes to the search engine market, Google is a monopolist; in April, the DOJ pushed an ambitious remedy proposal to dismantle its search monopoly. Google was dealt another blow in April in the second case, where judge Leonie Brinkema agreed that Google has illegally monopolized online advertising.
Antitrust enforcers are now making major strides toward reining in Google’s anti-competitive behavior.
There’s no question that Google’s monopoly is looking more fragile than ever. Even as Big Tech CEOs have bent over backwards to curry favor with the Trump administration, they’ve failed to stop antitrust efforts against them from continuing. And at a time when Meta is also in the antitrust hot seat in court, there’s real reason for optimism when it comes to finally taking Big Tech to task.
Nevertheless, when you consider the scale of Google’s empire, the search and digital advertising lawsuits should be seen as just the beginning of the battle. Sure, anyone who’s used a computer understands just how ubiquitous Google’s search engine is. But less obvious to most people is that it is set to control a media empire bigger than Disney, all while working to dominate the self-driving car market and gobble up promising startups. This doesn’t even get into the AI factor: As the DOJ noted in court, the rapid pace of AI development could further entrench Google’s monopoly if left unchecked.
Take YouTube, Google’s most powerful asset after search. As antitrust suits against Google in the U.S. and abroad have piled up in recent years, YouTube has often felt like a threat hidden in plain sight. Take the issue of advertising on YouTube, for example. The Information, a tech-focused publication, noted last year that Google has a policy of requiring would-be YouTube advertisers to use Google’s in-house DV360 tool. The impact of this rule has, predictably, been to put more money in Google’s pockets while deepening advertisers’ reliance on its services.
For $1.6 billion in 2006, Google was able to take control of what today is the world’s largest video platform, with the deal avoiding antitrust action. Almost 20 years later, there remains no real competitor to YouTube: Though TikTok and Instagram’s Reels compete with YouTube when it comes to short-form video, the service is without a peer in long-form, monetizable content.
In June 2024, a coalition of advocacy groups called on the DOJ to scrutinize YouTube. In their letter, they noted that the platform’s dominance is propped up by bundling practices that make it nearly impossible for rivals to compete. Of specific concern is that smart TVs emerging as a norm in U.S. households could allow Google and YouTube to cement its dominance in home entertainment.
Few moves better illustrate Google’s expansionist mindset (and arrogance in the face of antitrust lawsuits) than its bid to acquire Wiz. Though not a household name, there’s a reason that Google is intent on acquiring it, even after its initial bid was turned down. Despite launching just five years ago, Wiz has grown so fast that it is now used by roughly half of all Fortune 500 companies. By acquiring Wiz, Google will make other corporate giants even more dependent on its services, further fortifying its monopoly status.
Much of the coverage of the Wiz deal centers on its price tag, and for good reason. At $32 billion dollars, the Wiz acquisition stands to be the most expensive in Google’s history. This isn’t just notable because it is occurring in the face of multiple antitrust showdowns. But more unusual is that this figure is 30 times larger than Wiz’s expected revenue for 2025. While the math may seem peculiar at first, there’s likely more than meets the eye here.
Few have better insight into Google’s anti-competitive behavior than Jonathan Kanter, who took the company to court twice when he led the DOJ Antitrust Division under former President Joe Biden. In a recent CNBC interview, Kanter posited that the deal could be a “Trojan horse for Google to get access to data that is increasingly becoming out of its reach.”
In 2006, federal regulators fumbled the ball by allowing the acquisition of YouTube to go through unscathed. The next year, the Federal Trade Commission made the mistake of allowing Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick, a deal that would help build and cement the company’s digital advertising dominance. But two decades later, antitrust enforcers are now making major strides toward reining in Google’s anti-competitive behavior. As federal officials work to correct the mistakes of the past, they should continue taking a multifaceted approach to Google’s monopoly.
The ruling pertained to the company's monopolistic hold on advertising technology, and just last year a judge found Google had an illegal monopoly over the internet search and ad markets.
For the second time in less than a year, a federal judge on Thursday ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly in part of its tech business—leading to the latest calls for the Silicon Valley giant to be broken up to end its anticompetitive practices.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Google holds a monopoly over two online advertising markets, after the U.S. Justice Department and several states filed a lawsuit arguing its practices allowing it to dominate advertising technology had enabled the $1.88 trillion company to charge higher prices and take a bigger portion of profits from sales.
"In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web," said Brinkema in the 115-page decision.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) applauded DOJ lawyers and called the victory "the result of years of work to rein in tech companies' abuses."
Google's latest legal defeat, said the senator, shows that "Google is an illegal monopolist—and it's time to break up this tech giant."
Jonathan Kanter, former assistant attorney general in the DOJ's Antitrust Division, added that the company "is an illegal monopolist twice over."
"The company's near-total dominance of the online advertising market hurts media companies, rival search engines, social media companies, and anyone who consumes media on the internet."
Last August, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued a landmark ruling in another antitrust case against Google, saying the company had illegally monopolized the online search and general text advertising markets.
Next week, Mehta is scheduled to consider whether to break up the company over its control of online searches. The DOJ has also called for a breakup of Google's advertising tech monopoly.
"Case by case, antitrust enforcers are taming the beasts of Big Tech," said Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project. "Yet another monumental win in the history of antitrust enforcement, this case in particular is a win for journalists, publishers, online content creators, and the distributed open web."
In the advertising tech case that was decided Thursday, the government argued last year that Google locked web publishers into using its software, harming websites that produce content that they make available for free online.
The result of Google's practices, said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, "is that our internet is less open and free, and civic discourse has irreparably been damaged by killing the local news we need to operate a vibrant democracy."
"This ruling is an unequivocal win for the American people that will help lower prices, increase competition, and lead to a better internet for everyone," said Haworth.
Jason Kint, CEO of the nonprofit trade association Digital Content Next, said Thursday's ruling underscores "the global harm caused by Google's practices, which have deprived premium publishers worldwide of critical revenue, undermining their ability to sustain high-quality journalism and entertainment."
"Today's decision," said Kint, "is a significant step toward restoring competition and accountability in the digital advertising ecosystem."
Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at Demand Progress Education Fund, said that "Google's illegal monopolies are blunting [the United States'] competitive edge in the tech industry" and called on the courts to take far-reaching action against the company.
"Our nation has grown prosperous and powerful because of competition," said Peterson-Cassin. "The company's near-total dominance of the online advertising market hurts media companies, rival search engines, social media companies, and anyone who consumes media on the internet. As one of the richest, most powerful companies in the history of humanity, a mere fine or slap on the wrist won't cut it. For the good of our nation and the health of our tech and media industries the government must force Google to sell its advertising technology division."
"While he is acting aggressively to lower taxes for the wealthy, we haven't seen that zeal to help the working class," said one union leader.
As Republicans in Washington, D.C., work to give the wealthy more tax cuts by targeting programs that help millions of American families, critics on Friday called out U.S. President Donald for his "broken promises to working people."
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and MomsRising announced in a Friday statement that they partnered up for an electronic advertisement in New York City's Times Square that is set to run 20 hours a day for two weeks.
AFT president Randi Weingarten said that even as Trump "campaigned on the promise to lower grocery prices," his actions since taking office show his true priorities.
"While he is acting aggressively to lower taxes for the wealthy," said Weingarten, "we haven't seen that zeal to help the working class."
"Has the president lowered food prices? No. Has he reduced inflation? Has he spurred job growth? No," she continued. "Instead, he reserves his real efforts for the billionaire class: cutting taxes on the rich, slashing federal funding for kids, and firing dedicated public servants, while ignoring the plight of working Americans who need his help the most."
"Americans deserve a leader who is listening to our concerns and working to make our lives better."
As The New York Timesnoted on the eve of Trump's January inauguration, he spotlighted the high costs of groceries during a campaign stop in Erie, Pennsylvania crowd last September and told the crowd that "we're going to get the prices down."
The new 10-second ad displayed at W. 43rd St. and Broadway asks, "Are your grocery bills lower?" and points out that a dozen eggs cost $6.55 the day Trump took office versus $7.55 today.
The Trump administration's antitrust enforcers face mounting calls to crack down on U.S. egg producers accused of taking advantage of the bird flu crisis to hike prices, boost profits, and consolidate market power.
"This billboard is not just an ad but a sign that the American people—moms, educators, healthcare workers, and more—are working together to ensure the president keeps his word on the real-life kitchen-table issues like the cost of eggs," said Weingarten. "No matter who you voted for, Americans deserve a leader who is listening to our concerns and working to make our lives better."
The ad's debut came after Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives advanced their budget resolution—which would slash healthcare and food aid to fund $4.5 trillion in tax giveaways to rich people and corporations—out of committee Thursday night, as Trump and the chair of his Department of Government Efficiency, billionaire Elon Musk, fired thousands of federal workers.
"What's happening in our country is no laughing matter to America's moms, who want the lawmakers we elect to reduce the cost of eggs, food, childcare, housing, and other essentials—not create chaos and hardship by handing the reins of government to unaccountable billionaires who are looking out only for themselves," said MomsRising executive director Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner.
"This billboard is a reminder that Trump's fealty to the richest 1% can have a devastating impact on your safety, your family's future, and your wallets," she added. "The chaotic beginning of Trump's second term makes it easy to forget, but we have not forgotten his promise to address rising food costs for families across the nation. Moms, kids, and families deserve better."
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, argued in a Friday opinion piece for MSNBC that "it may be unfair to hold a new administration accountable for broad-based price increases mere weeks after taking office. But Trump invited the criticism. Weeks before the election, he posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the prices of eggs and gas are 'OUT OF CONTROL!!!' and he promised that on 'DAY ONE' he would 'SLASH prices–so fast it'll make their heads spin."
"He consistently claimed he had a plan to bring down prices; now it's clear that he's stiffing the people he promised like so many lawyers and contractors before them," Jacquez wrote. "Americans are already taking notice. In a poll this week by YouGov/CBS News, a whopping 66% of voters said Trump's focus on lowering prices was 'not enough.'"
"Far from being geared to bring prices down, Trump's early policy priorities are likely to add to inflation," he continued, warning about the impacts of Trump's tariff agenda, the House Budget Committee's Thursday resolution, and Musk's "war on government workers, including the inspectors and scientists who monitor chickens—as an avian flu outbreak wreaks havoc on our egg supply."
Jacquez stressed that "if Trump were serious about lowering prices, then he'd be working to ensure that the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share in taxes, not receive a massive giveaway. He'd be cracking down on monopolies and large corporations that use their market power to profit off consumers, not shutting down the agency that protects them."
"Unfortunately, it appears that Trump has pulled off another con job," he concluded. "Only this time, instead of the Atlantic City casinos left holding the bag, it's American families."