It seems that Google's dominance and, in some cases, its complete monopoly, over a number of digital services like internet browsing, search, and online advertising is finally facing the heat in the US. Its monopolistic practices are under serious antitrust legal scrutiny.
In the last one year, Google has lost two major antitrust cases in the US—one concerning its dominance in online advertising, which it lost in April 2025, and the other regarding its monopoly in internet search, which it lost last year.
Apart from the antitrust cases against Meta (owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp), both antitrust cases against Google are crucial not only for checking the continuing market dominance of Google and other big tech companies but also for shaping the future of the ongoing battle to rein in the extraordinary power and influence of big tech—whether by breaking them up, forcing them to sell a part of the company, or by strictly regulating them.
That Google is taking the matter seriously can be understood in its hiring of Donald Verrilli Jr, the top lawyer for the US government during Barack Obama's presidency, to lead its appeal in court. In another recent development, Google's parent company Alphabet Inc has formally agreed to invest $500 million over the next decade to upgrade its global compliance framework, in compliance with a proposed settlement in one of the lawsuits, as per media reports.
The move is significant as it marks a distinct shift in Google's approach toward the legal cases and regulatory compliance.
'Illegal' Monopoly
In April 2025, the Eastern District Court of Virginia has ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in the online advertising market.
Notably, the case filed in 2023 by the US Department of Justice (DoJ), along with several states during the Joe Biden administration, argued that Google leveraged its market dominance to manipulate online advertising technologies, charge higher fees, and marginalise competitors, thereby violating the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
Judge Brinkema, who agreed with the arguments and evidence presented, stated in her judgment that Google’s practices were substantially harmful to publishers, fair competition, and consumers.
The court found that Google controlled two critical components of the online advertising ecosystem: the ad servers used by publishers and the ad exchanges that facilitate bidding for ad space.
The ad-tech market, monopolised and manipulated by Google, functions through a system involving ad servers, ad exchanges, and advertiser networks—all essential for placing digital ads in the milliseconds between a user clicking on a link and the page loading.
By acquiring most of its competitors in the ad-tech domain, especially DoubleClick and AdMeld, and compelling publishers to use its ad servers and exchanges, Google has come to dominate the online advertising market. Google’s dominance in this space is underscored by the fact that its ad-tech division ranks as the company’s second-largest source of revenue and profit, following Google Search.
In 2021 alone, Google’s ad-tech business generated approximately $31.7 billion in revenue. Overall, its online advertising operations accounted for nearly 80 percent of the company’s total revenue. According to data submitted in court, Google holds a massive market share: 87 percent of the US ad server market and 91 percent of the global market, along with significant shares in the ad exchange and ad network markets.
It is not surprising, therefore, that a government attorney compared Google’s dominance in the ad-tech market to a scenario in which Goldman Sachs or Citibank owned the New York Stock Exchange.
While this case is now moving toward the remedy phase where the court will determine and order appropriate measures, including possibly forcing Google to sell its ad-tech business to ensure fair competition in the online advertising market, another crucial antitrust case against the company, which it lost last year and which challenged its dominance over internet browsers and search engines, is currently in the remedy phase.
Killing Competition
In the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Amit Mehta had ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in search through a “feedback loop” strategy.
This strategy involved making hefty payments, over $26 billion a year to mobile phone manufacturers like Apple and Samsung to ensure that Google’s search engine remained the default on their devices, and in some cases, prohibited pre-installation of competitor search engines.
The DoJ argued that these deals suppressed competition and created unfair market conditions. The data submitted in court shows Google’s overwhelming dominance, holding approximately 89.2 percent of the general search services market and 94.9 percent on mobile devices. It also showed that 50 percent of all US search queries were made through default access points covered by Google’s distribution agreements with phone manufacturers.
The DoJ was also able to show that these deals foreclosed 45 percent of the general search text advertising market and 50 percent of the general search services market by query volume, enabling Google to raise ad prices and limit competitors’ revenues.
As the high-profile antitrust case against Google moves into the remedy phase, the US Justice Department is urging the court to impose strict corrective measures. These include forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser, banning payments to phone manufacturers for making Google the default search engine, and, if market competitiveness fails to improve within five years, potentially requiring Google to divest its Android operating system.
In the digital advertising antitrust case, the DoJ is pushing for a breakup of Google’s ad-tech empire, specifically calling for the divestiture meaning sell of AdX and DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP).
While these measures may appear harsh, there is a genuine concern that if Google’s dominance in search is allowed to continue, it could spill over into emerging AI markets. By embedding its AI tools into Chrome and Google Search, Google may further consolidate and expand its market power.
Google Pushes Back
As expected, Google pushed back by challenging the judgments and is also doing its best to derail the process by using every possible legal tactic, along with political maneuvering and lobbying, to preserve its dominance.
During the trial, it attempted to change both the court and the government’s antitrust attorneys. It is also employing its PR machinery and resorting to scaremongering tactics to shape public perception suggesting that these cases will weaken and destroy the dominance of American big tech companies, undermine US tech supremacy, and strengthen Chinese tech firms.
Google is also arguing that these antitrust actions could harm technological progress, as tech companies like itself, which invest billions of dollars in research and development, may be discouraged or unable to make such investments in the future.
It is certainly lobbying to influence the Donald Trump administration to tone down the aggressive stance of the DoJ. But surprisingly, so far, the Trump administration is sticking to the broadly agreed bipartisan stance of reining in big tech companies.
Impact Beyond the US
These cases are important for emerging economies like India as well, because Google’s internet browser, Chrome, commands over 66 percent of the global browser market.
According to industry estimates, Google Chrome continues to dominate India’s internet browser market, accounting for around 89.2 percent of usage across all devices. Its grip is even tighter on mobile platforms, where it holds a 90.1% share. Chrome’s overwhelming dominance effectively positions Google as the gatekeeper for how most Indians access online search services.
Market dominance and monopolies always harm fair competition, and ultimately, consumers and the economy bear the cost.
It is true that these cases may take years to reach a final conclusion, as big tech companies will use every trick in the book and even outside it. Given the extraordinary political influence of big tech companies, this is also a test of the antitrust laws and regulatory system in the US. Until now, they have largely failed to rein in big tech firms, as the famous Microsoft case illustrates. However, with shifting public perception, the courts may now assert the public interest and uphold the principle of fair competition.
There is a growing political consensus in the US and many other economies especially after the meteoric rise of Elon Musk that the undue dominance and influence of big tech companies is harmful not only to consumers and competition, but to democracy itself.
If the Trump administration refrains from interfering in favor of big tech companies and maintains its current stance, there is a real possibility of reining in these corporations. The courts’ decisions and policy interventions could not only reshape the digital ecosystem and the online publishing industry, but also strengthen the democratic public sphere.
(Anand Pradhan is Professor of Journalism at Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Dhenkanal, Odisha. This is an opinion article and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)