The United States Justice Department (DOJ) told a federal judge on Tuesday that it is actively considering recommending the breakup of Google to alleviate the harms it claims have been caused by the company’s monopolization of the online search market. This historic case could lead to the forced divestiture of significant portions of Google’s operations, a remedy unseen in modern antitrust enforcement.
The DOJ’s potential remedy could mark the most significant challenge to the dominance of a tech giant since its failed attempt to dismantle Microsoft two decades ago. The implications of this lawsuit could reverberate throughout Silicon Valley and beyond, transforming how online search and advertising ecosystems operate.
The Justice Department’s court filing presents a strong case for dismantling parts of Google’s empire to curb its monopolistic practices. In a 32-page document submitted to Judge Amit Mehta, antitrust enforcers outlined possible remedies, including forcing Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., to sell off parts of its operations.
The filing highlighted the DOJ’s concerns that Google has leveraged its control over products such as Chrome, Google Play, and Android to unfairly advantage its own search engine and related services. This self-promotion extends to new technologies like artificial intelligence, which the DOJ claims Google is using to maintain its chokehold on the search market, while simultaneously stifling innovation and competition from smaller companies.
In addition to structural remedies, the DOJ is considering behavioral changes. These could include compelling Google to give competitors fair access to the data it uses to build search results and AI products, a move that would give rivals a shot at competing in the same space.
According to the filing, the DOJ wants to prevent Google from leveraging its massive ecosystem—comprised of its mobile operating system Android, its browser Chrome, and its app store Google Play—to maintain its monopoly. The goal is to create a more level playing field for emerging competitors, ensuring that Google’s powerful grip on the online search industry does not stifle competition and innovation.
If the court ultimately decides to force Google to sell off parts of its business, it would be a watershed moment in antitrust enforcement, a move not seen since the breakup of AT&T in 1984. While the government attempted to split Microsoft in the late 1990s for similar antitrust violations, that effort ultimately failed when an appeals court overturned the breakup order. This time, however, the DOJ seems more confident in its strategy and more determined to succeed in what could be one of the most significant antitrust rulings in decades.
The move comes as part of an ongoing lawsuit in which Judge Mehta ruled earlier this year that Google violated antitrust laws by maintaining illegal distribution agreements with smartphone manufacturers and web browsers. These agreements effectively made Google Search the default search engine on most devices, limiting users’ choices and preventing rivals from gaining a foothold.
Google’s dominance over search advertising is also under scrutiny, with the DOJ exploring options to give advertisers more control over where their ads appear on the platform. These steps, if enforced, could dramatically reduce Google’s ability to monopolize the online advertising space, giving smaller advertisers and search engines a fighting chance.
Google’s monopolization of online search has long been a thorn in the side of regulators. Since its inception, Google’s search engine has grown exponentially, capturing more than 90% of the global search market. This dominance has allowed Google to accumulate an unprecedented amount of user data, providing it with a distinct advantage in delivering highly targeted ads—a key driver of its profits.
The DOJ argues that Google’s monopolistic practices have hindered competition, innovation, and consumer choice. By establishing default search agreements with manufacturers and browsers, Google not only stifles competition but also denies consumers the ability to easily access rival search engines, limiting innovation in the market.
Google’s scale also poses risks in emerging sectors like artificial intelligence. With access to enormous datasets and advanced algorithms, Google is increasingly integrating AI into its search services. This integration, according to the DOJ, further cements Google’s stranglehold on the market, creating barriers that make it almost impossible for smaller companies or new entrants to compete.
In its filing, the DOJ warned that Google’s dominance could prevent the development of new and innovative AI-driven search tools. By preventing rivals from accessing the data it uses for search algorithms, Google ensures that its AI products, built on vast datasets, will continue to have a significant advantage over any potential competitors.
If Google is forced to divest parts of its business, the impact on the tech industry could be profound. A breakup would not only dismantle the company’s integrated ecosystem but also create opportunities for new players to enter the market. This would encourage innovation, leading to more diverse choices for consumers and potentially reshaping the future of online search and advertising.
In the short term, a breakup could create chaos within Google’s operations. Divesting portions of its business, such as Android or its ad division, would require massive restructuring, and it’s unclear how the tech giant would handle the logistics of such a move. However, it could also provide opportunities for smaller companies and startups to step into the market and offer innovative alternatives to Google’s search and advertising services.
The breakup would also send a clear message to other tech giants that monopolistic practices will no longer be tolerated. Companies like Amazon, Apple, and Meta (formerly Facebook) have all faced scrutiny for similar antitrust concerns. A successful DOJ challenge against Google could embolden regulators to pursue similar cases against other tech giants, leading to broader shifts in how the tech industry operates.
As of yet, Google has not officially responded to the DOJ’s latest filing, but the company has indicated that it plans to appeal Judge Mehta’s decision once the remedy phase is complete. Google’s defense throughout the trial has been that its products, including its search engine, benefit consumers by providing high-quality, free services supported by advertising revenue.
Google has also argued that the ease of switching search engines is evidence that it does not have a true monopoly. Users can change their default search engine at any time, the company contends, and many other companies offer competing services. However, critics argue that while switching is technically possible, Google’s dominance over default search placements on devices makes it extremely difficult for consumers to consider alternatives.
In the meantime, Judge Mehta has scheduled the remedy phase of the trial for next spring, with a final decision expected by August 2025. The DOJ has indicated that it will provide a more comprehensive proposal for remedies next month, laying out specific measures it believes will restore competition to the search market. This could include restrictions on Google’s ability to invest in or acquire potential competitors, and measures aimed at giving advertisers more transparency and control over their campaigns on Google’s platform.
Google is also embroiled in a separate legal battle with Epic Games Inc., the company behind the popular game Fortnite. On Monday, a different federal judge ordered Google to open up its app store for the next three years as part of a separate antitrust case related to Google’s dominance in app distribution on Android smartphones. Epic Games accused Google of maintaining a monopoly over the app store, restricting competition, and taking an excessive cut of sales.
The ruling in the Epic Games case could provide a preview of what’s to come in the larger DOJ antitrust battle. If the courts continue to rule against Google in these antitrust cases, the tech giant could find itself facing multiple restructuring orders, each aimed at curbing its dominance over different areas of the digital economy.
The Justice Department’s decision to pursue a potential breakup of Google represents a historic shift in antitrust enforcement in the United States. Should the court decide in favor of dismantling parts of the tech giant, it would mark a dramatic turning point in the ongoing battle between regulators and Big Tech.
A breakup of Google could reshape the tech landscape, fostering competition and encouraging innovation in an industry that has long been dominated by a handful of companies. As the remedy phase of the trial unfolds in the coming months, all eyes will be on the DOJ and the courts to see whether they will finally succeed in reining in Google’s monopoly—and what that will mean for the future of online search, advertising, and beyond. The stakes in this case are immense, not just for Google but for the entire tech industry. The outcome could serve as a blueprint for future antitrust cases, signaling a new era in how regulators deal with the power of technology giants.
