In today’s world, imagining a life without Google is almost unthinkable. From searching for information to managing emails, navigating maps, organising schedules, and learning new skills, Google has crept into most parts of our lives. We basically “google everything,” a famous phrase, which is the strength we envision Alphabet Inc. to possess. But in the field of competition and anti-trust law, “It’s Google again!” is an emerging aphorism. That’s why, by the end of this article, we will tear through the paper window and see Alphabet Inc.’s real strength.

Through the paper window: peering through the anti-trust lens

Last year, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and multiple US states filed an antitrust case against Google LLC. They accused Google of illegally monopolising the advertising technology market, resulting in a violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. In August 2024, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Google indeed monopolised the market. Consequently, the DOJ proposed drastic measures to address these monopolistic practices, including the imminent divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser. The next hearing is due for April 2025, when both parties will present their proposals to remedy the situation.

Inception: DOJ and other states v. Google (2023

In August 2024, US District Judge Amit P. Mehta in his ruling pointed out that Google held an illegal monopoly over the search market. It has a market share of approximately 82% for general searches and 94% on mobile devices. The court found that the service agreements between Google and major smartphone companies such as Apple and Samsung exclusively make its search engine default in their smart devices. This practice hampers healthy competition from other search engine companies. This directly violated section 2 of the Sherman Act. The US District Court for the District of Columbia highlighted that Google gained monopoly through competitive means of using exclusive contracts, that inevitably foreclosed substantial market access for its competitors like Microsoft Bing and DuckDuckgo .

Proposed remedies

The Department of Justice has proposed several remedies to restore healthy competition in the market. They are as follows:

• Restricting Google from making exclusionary contracts with other companies that would make Google Search their default search engine.
• Requiring Google to provide transparency regarding data collected in its search index, potentially allowing competitors to access this data. This addresses the current disadvantage competitors face due to Google’s monopolistic access to the largest search dataset needed for improving search capabilities.
• Requiring Google to syndicate its search results, ranking signals, and query data to competitors at marginal cost for a period of 10 years.
• Eliminating Google’s influence over search services through a forced divestiture of the Chrome browser.
• Establishing rules to ensure Google does not favour its own services over competitors in both search results and advertising.

Expert’s opinions

There is a general consensus that we need to do something about Google being a monopoly. However, experts think breaking off Chrome might not be the silver bullet some hope it is. Many industry watchers are sceptic about how this would actually work in practice. They point out that separating Chrome from Google’s ecosystem is like trying to separate eggs from a baked cake. There remains genuine worry about how this might potentially affect everyday users and developers. The browser that millions of consumers rely on could possibly become less user-friendly. The developers who have built their work around Chrome’s integration with Google Services may find themselves in a tough spot.

Some experts think selling off might be missing the real objective of fostering competition in the industry. They argue that if we want to create more competition in the market, we need to think bigger than just breaking off the browser. Many experts advocate for alternative remedies that focus on modifying Google’s existing business practices rather than divesting Chrome. They suggest enforcing non-discrimination policies and ensuring fair competition in adveritising and search services are more cost-effective approaches. Anyways, how will all of this fit into a future where AI is becoming increasingly important in how we search and browse the web?

Google’s impending future

As we progress with the series of chronological events, it only seems that the next hearing scheduled in April 2025 can decide Google’s future.  Insofar, Google has vehemently opposed the divestiture proposal arguing that:

• Both Chrome and Android are open-source platforms. Divesting would endanger the security and privacy of millions of Americans. This will also lead to sharing of trade secrets with foreign companies, while stagging the progress of AI and the apparent American leadership in the global tech scenario.
• They maintain such a huge market share because their product is superior and the consumer’s choice. Divestiture would hurt the consumer.

Legal experts at Bloomberg Intelligence think Google is more likely to face strict rules about how it operates rather than being broken up. But don’t let that fool you, these rules could still hit Google where it hurts the most: revenue. According to analysts Matthew Schettenhelm and Jennifer Rie, the biggest threat comes from potentially losing Google’s position as the default search engine on various platforms. While it’s hard to pin down exactly how much this might cost Google, these experts estimate Google could lose a whopping $28 billion. And despite Google’s plans to fight back, these analysts are pretty confident the DC District Court’s decision will stick.

Conclusion: It’s a win for us

It is clear that big tech giants exert immense influence in our daily lives and having that power accumulated in the hands of one company can be extremely dangerous for the general population. It is an action that comes in right time with right intent. With Trump back in power, it will be extremely interesting to see which direction this antitrust trial takes. If such instances continue, then I think personally we move into dark times where these big tech companies may hold more power over us in our day to day lives as compared to governments and culture. It is daunting to think that after all they do control the most precious asset of the twenty-first century, i.e., data.