One Court Case Could Totally Upend Google’s Search Engine Empire

Google’s search engine empire could face a serious reckoning as the Justice Department’s landmark antitrust case entered its remedies phase Monday, handing a federal judge the power to dismantle the tech behemoth’s illegal monopoly over how users discover information online.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia already ruled in August that Google illegally maintained a “monopoly” in general search markets, mainly through billion-dollar deals to secure exclusive default status on mobile devices and browsers. Now, Judge Amit Mehta will decide how far the government can go to unwind said monopoly — with potential remedies ranging from prohibiting exclusivity agreements to forcing divestiture of Chrome or Android, interventions that could deliver a serious blow to the company’s entire business model.

“You’re ultimately trying to resolve the particular harm that you’ve seen,” Luke Hogg, director of technology policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “And whether or not Google’s control of Chrome or Google’s control of Android is contributory to their general size and market position is secondary to questions of how that actually helped in their monopolization of search.”

The E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse is seen in Washington, DC on October 16, 2023. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Mehta’s forthcoming remedy could bar Google from continuing exclusivity deals with Apple, Samsung and Android device manufacturers — a core part of the company’s current business model. Though the DOJ doubled down in March on pursuing more drastic measures, like forcing Google to spin off Chrome or Android entirely, Hogg said that’s unlikely to happen.

“There’s middle ground points where you can get to greater competition in those markets without totally spinning it off,” Hogg said, pointing to historical precedent. “If you go back and look at the Microsoft case and the consent decree there, they get to this middle ground point where there’s a lot of openness requirements, interoperability requirements, banning of exclusivity deals and things like that.”

Hogg was alluding to the DOJ’s actions in 1998. lawsuit opposed Microsoft, alleging that the company leveraged its control over PC operating systems to stifle competition from Netscape by incorporating Internet Explorer into Windows. Although the court originally mandated a breakup, the lawsuit eventually led to different outcomes. ended In a consent decree that mandated interoperability regulations and prohibited specific exclusive agreements—a possible framework for curbing Google’s power without dismantling the company entirely.

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (center) addresses journalists during a press briefing on May 18 held at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., regarding the submission of an antitrust lawsuit by the federal government along with attorneys general from 20 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, targeting major software corporation Microsoft. (Image credit: TIM SLOAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Such a ruling — that is, enforcing interoperability requirements and exclusivity bans rather than forcing breakups or divestiture — could rattle Google’s financial relationships with key partners, particularly Apple, Samsung and Mozilla — companies that have long enjoyed billion-dollar benefits from default placement deals. Apple previously indicated it would likely keep Google as the default search engine on Safari even without those payments, but the end of such arrangements would still cut off a highly lucrative revenue stream. Google paid Apple $20 billion to remain the default search engine on Safari in 2022, according to Apple’s December motion to intervene in the case.

"If this court prevents Google from sharing revenues for search distribution, Apple would be left with two undesirable options," wrote Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice president of services. declaration of support for the motion. “It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple’s users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari. But because customers prefer Google, removing it as an option would harm both Apple and its customers.”

Mozilla could encounter much more substantial disruptions. A considerable part of its yearly income, around 85% in 2023, comes from this source. according For Fortune—due to its exclusive agreement with Google, a reliance that might turn into a critical threat if the court decides to prohibit such deals entirely.

On the other hand, Samsung might enjoy greater flexibility in negotiating independent agreements should Google be compelled to decouple Android from its suite of services. However, disentangling these closely intertwined contracts could pose fresh challenges for device manufacturers accustomed to receiving the entire bundle—operating system, browser, and search engine—all in one comprehensive package.

NEW YORK, NY – MARCH 18: A photograph shows Gemini AI displayed on a smartphone on March 18, 2024, in New York City. The image was taken by Michael M. Santiago for Getty Images.

However, as the legal dispute centers on Google's dominance in conventional search, the industry’s next phase might be moving out of the company's reach. The emergence of AI-driven platforms such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity is starting to alter user interaction with online data—transitioning from searches based on keywords to more conversational, context-sensitive responses.

The search market has changed since this case began," Hogg stated. "However, that does not imply that Google’s dominant tactics lack issues.

Google, which has been at the forefront of AI research, has introduced its rival model called Gemini. However, it is encountering significant challenges from competitors such as OpenAI and Anthropic, which are progressing more swiftly and outperforming Google in various crucial metrics. according According to Stanford University’s 2025 AI Index Report.

Hogg contended that the company's leadership in conventional search might have deterred it from actively developing its own innovative technologies.

They had been working on what would later become Gemini for about four, five, six years ago," Hogg went on. "However, they decided to hold back from launching it until OpenAI entered the arena. They refrained from putting in as much investment and effort compared to external companies due to the evident rivalry with their dominant position in the search market.

In the Biden administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) at first proposed In November, Google decided to sell off its artificial intelligence holdings, such as its shares in firms like Anthropic, aiming to avoid strengthening its grip on the search market. However, by March, the Department of Justice under the Trump administration had taken over this issue. only requiring Google will provide prior notification about upcoming AI investments — moving towards a less interventionist strategy during President Donald Trump’s tenure, although worries persist.

"We think that Google might try to find ways around the court's solutions if these AI rules aren’t added," said DOJ prosecutor David Dahlquist. told According to Fortune, Mehta will appear in court on Monday. "Generative AI represents Google's next step to maintain their relentless momentum," as stated in writing. However, an official public transcript of the hearing hasn't been made available yet.

Nevertheless, the main query remains whether any solution – regardless of its precision – can be implemented swiftly or strongly enough to make a difference in a search market that is rapidly evolving due to AI advancements or potentially becoming obsolete. According to Hogg, these solutions could work, provided they are complemented by genuine competitive forces.

It will ultimately result in a mix of solutions targeting Google along with advancements in the marketplace," Hogg stated. "In about five, six, or even seven years, we might find that Google Search could resemble Yahoo — everyone recalls how significant it once was, but nowadays people mostly use Perplexity or something similar.

The case is being brought forth during a particularly sensitive political period for major technology companies. Initially initiated under the Trump administration, the legal action proceeded under former President Joe Biden and has since been reignited during Trump’s second term. Important regulatory officials, such as FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson—a long-time critic of Silicon Valley mergers—have played significant roles in this development. signaled A tougher approach towards digital monopolies, despite the administration’s Department of Justice easing some of its initial requests.

Last week, Google faced yet another setback when a federal judge determined that it had illegally leveraged its leadership in digital ads to gain an advantage over rivals —a distinct case with ramifications that might result in additional structural measures. Meta also continues to be embroiled in this issue. legal dispute with the Federal Trade Commission Over its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, highlighting that Google’s test case is merely one aspect of a significantly broader conflict.

Regardless of what Mehta decides in the upcoming months, the result will show just how determined and capable the government is in questioning the core strength of Silicon Valley’s influence.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@The News Pulsenewsfoundation.org .