Exploring the Potential Remedies for Google’s Antitrust Violations in the Search Monopoly Case

On August 5, 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by maintaining an illegal monopoly in the online search and general search text advertising markets. The court found that Google’s exclusive distribution agreements, such as paying $26.3 billion in 2021 to secure default search engine status on devices like Apple’s iPhones and Mozilla’s Firefox browser, had anticompetitive effects. These deals foreclosed rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo from significant market access, reinforcing Google’s dominance approximately 90% of the U.S. search market and 95% on mobile. The ruling rejected Google’s claim that its dominance stemmed solely from superior product quality, emphasizing the exclusionary nature of its contracts.

A second trial to determine remedies, which could include structural changes or bans on exclusive deals, is ongoing, with Google planning to appeal. On April 17, 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Google violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by illegally monopolizing the open-web display publisher ad server and ad exchange markets. The court highlighted Google’s practices, including tying its publisher ad server (DFP) to its ad exchange (AdX), and its acquisitions like DoubleClick, which consolidated market power. The ruling found that Google’s actions harmed competition and publishers by limiting options and inflating costs.

The Department of Justice and 17 states are seeking remedies, potentially including divestiture of parts of Google’s ad network business, though Google argues this could harm publishers. Google plans to appeal, noting the court found no harm from its advertiser tools or acquisitions. These rulings mark the first major U.S. antitrust victories against a tech giant since the Microsoft case in 1998. They reflect heightened scrutiny of Big Tech’s market dominance, with the DOJ also pursuing cases against Meta, Amazon, and Apple. The search case could reshape how users access search engines, potentially opening the market to competitors, while the ad tech case may disrupt Google’s $200 billion+ digital advertising empire.

Remedies are still under consideration, and appeals could delay changes for years. In contrast, the European Union has fined Google over €8 billion since 2017 for similar antitrust violations, including Google Shopping, Android, and AdSense practices, showing a more aggressive regulatory stance. Google denies systemic wrongdoing, arguing its services benefit consumers and that market definitions in these rulings are too narrow. Critics of the rulings, including some industry groups, warn that aggressive remedies could stifle innovation or raise costs for publishers and advertisers. Supporters, including U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and state attorneys general, hail the decisions as historic wins for competition and consumer choice.

Judge Amit Mehta found Google illegally maintained a monopoly in online search and search text advertising through exclusive distribution agreements (e.g., paying $26.3 billion in 2021 to be the default search engine on Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla devices). The remedy phase, known as the “second trial,” began in September 2024 and is ongoing, with a final ruling expected in 2025.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is pushing to prohibit Google from entering contracts that make it the default search engine on browsers, operating systems, or devices. This could force Apple (Safari), Mozilla (Firefox), and Android manufacturers to offer users a choice of search engines at setup or allow easier switching. The DOJ argues this would restore competition by giving rivals like Bing or DuckDuckGo access to significant distribution channels (Google’s deals covered ~50% of search queries).

The DOJ may seek to compel Google to share search data e.g., user query and click data with competitors to level the playing field. Google’s vast data advantage fuels its search algorithm’s superiority, and sharing could help rivals improve their offerings. However, Google argues this raises privacy concerns and could degrade user experience. The DOJ has not ruled out breaking up parts of Google’s business, such as divesting Android or Chrome, which reinforce its search dominance.

However, Judge Mehta’s ruling suggested skepticism about structural remedies, focusing instead on behavioral fixes. Divestiture is considered a “long shot” due to complexity and Google’s integrated ecosystem. Inspired by EU remedies in the Android case, the court could require Google to implement a “choice screen” on Android devices or Chrome browsers, prompting users to select a search engine from a list of options. This has been effective in Europe, where Google’s search share dropped slightly after implementation.

While less likely, monetary penalties could be imposed to deter future violations. However, fines are less favored in U.S. antitrust law compared to the EU, where Google faced multibillion-euro penalties. The DOJ may seek to limit Google’s ability to tie search to other products e.g., Google Assistant, Maps or enter new exclusionary deals, ensuring competitors can access emerging platforms like AI assistants.

Ending default agreements could disrupt partnerships, potentially raising costs for companies like Apple, which relies on Google’s payments estimated at $20 billion annually. Apple might pass these costs to consumers or negotiate with other search engines. Remedies must ensure rivals can capitalize on new opportunities. Bing and DuckDuckGo have limited scale, and rapid market shifts could favor well-funded players like Amazon or OpenAI over smaller competitors.

Google argues that its default status reflects consumer preference and that remedies like choice screens could confuse users or degrade device performance. It also warns that data sharing could violate privacy laws like GDPR or CCPA. Remedies are unlikely to take effect before 2026 due to Google’s planned appeal, which could escalate to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

On April 17, 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google illegally monopolized the publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) markets through tying practices, exclusionary conduct, and acquisitions like DoubleClick. The DOJ, joined by 17 states, is seeking remedies to restore competition in the $200 billion+ digital advertising market. The remedy phase is in early stages, with proposals due in mid-2025. The DOJ strongly favors breaking up parts of Google’s ad tech stack, with a focus on divesting DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), Google’s dominant publisher ad server, or AdX, its ad exchange. Divestiture would aim to dismantle Google’s “walled garden,” where it controls the buy-side (advertisers), sell-side (publishers), and exchange, holding a 60%+ share of the ad server market and 50%+ of the exchange market. The DOJ argues this would foster independent competitors and lower costs for publishers.

The court could prohibit Google from requiring publishers to use AdX to access DFP’s full functionality, or vice versa. This would allow publishers to work with rival ad exchanges e.g., Magnite, PubMatic without losing access to Google’s advertiser demand, breaking Google’s vertical integration advantage.

The DOJ may push for Google to make its ad tech tools interoperable with competitors’ platforms, enabling publishers and advertisers to mix and match services. For example, Google could be required to open AdX’s real-time bidding to rival ad servers, reducing barriers to entry. The court could ban practices like “First Look” or “Dynamic Allocation,” which gave AdX preferential access to publisher inventory, sidelining competitors. This would ensure fair auction processes across ad exchanges.

Google could be forced to provide advertisers and publishers with clearer data on ad pricing, fees, and auction dynamics. The DOJ found Google’s opaque practices obscured its market power, harming customers. To prevent further consolidation, the court might restrict Google from acquiring ad tech firms, similar to its DoubleClick and AdMob deals, which entrenched its dominance. While not the primary focus, the DOJ could seek financial penalties or restitution for publishers harmed by Google’s practices, such as suppressed ad revenue due to monopolistic fees.

Divestiture could disrupt the ad ecosystem, as many publishers rely on Google’s integrated tools. Smaller publishers fear reduced revenue if Google’s ad demand is fragmented, while larger ones e.g., News Corp support breakup for long-term competition. Google’s ad tech operates globally, and U.S. remedies could conflict with EU or UK regulations, which are also probing Google’s ad practices. Coordination may be needed to avoid contradictory mandates.

Google argues divestiture is disproportionate, claiming its ad tools benefit publishers by streamlining operations. It also contends that competitors like Amazon and Meta are gaining ad market share, reducing the need for drastic remedies. Google’s appeal, likely to the Fourth Circuit, could delay remedies until 2027 or beyond. The company may seek a stay on divestitures or other measures pending appeal.

Behavioral remedies like banning exclusive deals or mandating choice screens are more likely than structural breakup, given Judge Mehta’s focus on specific contracts and U.S. courts’ historical reluctance to split tech giants. The DOJ is pushing for aggressive measures, but Google’s integrated ecosystem makes divestitures e.g., Chrome legally and technically complex. Divestiture of DFP or AdX is a stronger possibility, as Judge Brinkema’s ruling emphasized Google’s vertical control, and the DOJ has prioritized structural relief. However, untying and interoperability mandates are less disruptive alternatives that could still open the market.

The EU’s €2.4 billion (Google Shopping), €4.34 billion (Android), and €1.49 billion (AdSense) fines, plus behavioral mandates like Android choice screens, provide a playbook. The EU’s ongoing probe under the Digital Markets Act could align with U.S. remedies, amplifying global impact.