The legal battle between the U.S. Department of Justice and Google has entered its most consequential phase yet: determining how to undo what a judge ruled last year to be an illegal monopoly in the online search market.
In Washington, D.C., the two sides are clashing over whether Google should be forced to divest from its Chrome browser, terminate exclusive default search agreements, and open up its vast troves of search data to rivals. The case carries profound implications for the future of competition, consumer choice, and tech innovation.
The DOJ contends that Google’s dominance stems not just from quality products, but from anti-competitive practices that systematically suppress rivals.
Google, on the other hand, argues that its success is due to superior technology and warns that the proposed remedies would cripple U.S. tech innovation and undermine national security. As high-profile witnesses like Google CEO Sundar Pichai and DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg prepare to testify, the courtroom has become a battleground over the future of digital markets.
Why It Matters: This is the most significant tech antitrust case since Microsoft in the 1990s. The outcome could redefine the power limits of Big Tech, influence AI and browser markets, and set new global precedents for regulating dominant platforms. The DOJ v. Google remedies trial could have meaningful implications for consumer choice, national policy, and the development of AI.
- DOJ’s “Vicious Cycle” Argument: The Justice Department argues that Google’s multibillion-dollar default deals create a self-reinforcing loop: more search queries lead to better data, which improves results and increases revenue, allowing Google to secure even more default placements. The DOJ wants these arrangements, including the $20B annual deal with Apple, to end entirely.
- Demand for Chrome Divestiture: Central to the DOJ’s demands is that Google divest its Chrome browser, used by over 4 billion people. Prosecutors call Chrome a “gateway to search” that unfairly amplifies Google’s dominance. Google rebuts that Chrome isn’t viable as a standalone business and that its separation would harm users and disrupt related products like Chromebooks.
- Forced Licensing of Search Data: Perhaps the most sweeping demand is for Google to license its entire search index and result data to competitors. The DOJ sees this as a necessary correction to Google’s data advantage; Google calls it “white-labeling” their core product and a serious privacy and national security risk.
- AI as a New Front in Antitrust: While not part of the original case, Google’s AI efforts, especially the Gemini chatbot, have come under scrutiny. The DOJ argues that Google is using similar exclusionary tactics in the AI market. Witnesses from OpenAI and Perplexity are expected to testify that Google’s search and AI dominance are deeply intertwined.
- Google’s Defense: Innovation and National Interest: Google argues the DOJ’s proposed remedies would not only hurt its products but also the U.S. in its competition with Chinese AI firms like DeepSeek. Citing its foundational AI research and global leadership, Google claims a forced breakup would set back American tech innovation and increase cybersecurity risks.
Money, Chrome, and ChatGPT: The high stakes of Google’s monopoly trial – The Verge
The Justice Department and Google battle over how to fix a search engine monopoly – NPR
