Default by Design: The Antitrust Battle Between the U.S. and Google
By Rund Faraj ‘28
Curiosity may not kill, but it always leads to a search for answers that can be found at the tip of one's fingers. This begins with a website called Google, a popular search engine that has taken over everyday lives. Its market share of searches is consistent at 90% on computers and 95% of searches on phones. The success was short-lived, as questions were raised about Google's dominance and whether it was built on anticompetitive practices instead of innovation. An antitrust suit was filed in October 2020 by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. They alleged that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by illegally monopolizing the general search and search advertising markets. A separate lawsuit was filed two months later by 38 states, which validated the first suit's claims and expanded on them. They targeted Google's practices in managing search results, online advertising, and more. These two cases formed United States v. Google LLC, the largest antitrust case against a technology company since United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001).
Since courts have the power to interpret these statutes, they are able to prevent firms from overpowering and blocking out competitors. In this context, the courts applied the Sherman Act as well as the Clayton Antitrust Act to digital market eras, where firms like Google overpowered other companies by strategically engaging in monopolistic behavior, therefore becoming the sole company consumers use. With the authority of the Department of Justice and state Attorneys General, they were able to challenge tying and exclusionary agreements under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. They were also able to seek remedies, not only for mergers but also for unlawful actions that shut competitors out of the market under the Clayton Act. The Google case unfolds against these historical regulatory powers and represents laws directed at modern digital competition.
The Sherman Act was enacted in 1890 and establishes the regulation against monopolization, as it eliminates unfair competition while protecting fair competition. The Clayton Act of 1914 addresses specifics, such as price discrimination, tying agreements, and mergers that harm competition. These statutes were once interpreted by the courts in an industrial-based context. In the digital era, these statues have changed because there are now things like algorithmic control and effects. For example, in the antitrust fight against Microsoft, the court examined how exclusionary contracts and the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows allowed a monopoly in browsers. Through this, the legal framework required showing a relevant market, monopoly power, and anticompetitive conduct that harmed competition. Plaintiffs argued that Google paid billions of dollars to big companies like Apple and Samsung to ensure that its search engine was the default option on devices and browsers. These agreements allegedly made it impossible for other engines to compete and have customers use their search engine. Although users could change their engine, most do not; this is known as “default basis.” Because of this, the Plaintiffs contended that Google grew while keeping users in its economy, and the other competitors suffered.
The judicial framework developed through the Microsoft case was used to distinguish between competitive and exclusionary acts. Under this framework, the act must have an “anticompetitive effect.” The plaintiff must prove that the monopolistic action caused that effect, and the defendant can argue that it was justified. When these components are satisfied, under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the defendant may be found liable. When this situation occurs, the firm is unable to claim that it was competing fairly. In the United States v. Google LLC, the Department of Justice argued that Google did not improve via innovation and instead, restricted access to other search engines. This is shown through the court's findings that Google had entered into contracts that blocked competing search engines from participating in the market.
The first lawsuit filed by the DOJ and over 30 state Attorneys General was in October 2020, and alleged that Google was suppressing other competitors in search engines. The second lawsuit filed by 38 states confirmed the first suit's allegations and added more of its own. On January 7, 2021, these two suits were combined, and the trial began on September 12, 2023, after sufficient evidence was gathered. Parties gave closing arguments in May 2024 and on August 5, 2025, Judge Amit P. Mehta handed down his decision, holding that Google is a monopolist and had an exclusionary agreement; therefore was guilty of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act. It is not simply dominance that concludes the liable verdict, but rather the use of that dominance for harm. This decision was monumental in antitrust law and held great significance. It showed that Big Tech companies can be held responsible under antitrust laws, and that courts continue to keep adapting through different digital implementations. It bridged the gap between industrial monopolies in the past to digital monopolies like Google, showing how precedent stands and principles remain relevant even if the economy evolves.
After the liability phase, there was a remedies trial held in September 2025 to address Google's violations. The court set measures that prohibited Google from entering into these contracts and required data-sharing practices. The judge did not call for a corporate breakup, but instead focused on behavioral and structural remedies that righted the wrongs without breaking up the company. The remedies were designed to rein in fair competition and prevent Google from using its financial leverage to dominate the market. These rulings extended beyond Google and affected other technology companies that are facing inspections regarding their own market practices. Lawmakers look to the United States v. Google LLC case to address future monopolization in the digital economy. The reasoning emphasizes how consumers play a big part in the monopolization process, as it becomes more about control over access rather than a true market choice.
The United States v. Google LLC decision was a statement that technology must coexist with fairness. This case will be a reference point for future antitrust cases, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), platform algorithms, and digital advertising, which start to blur the lines between illegal competition and consumer harm. This spans to dominance in browsers, operating systems, and more. This case showed that no matter how modern something is, monopoly power remains, and fair competition needs to be protected consistently. It marked the first judicial rebuke of algorithmic and data-driven monopolization. The case illustrates how antitrust law is applied in this era, and that monopolization is able to take many forms through different evolutions. Google acted as a gatekeeper and raised concerns in other sectors of Big Tech, like Amazon's marketplace, which operates and is similarly dominant. This is why United States v. Google LLC may create a model for how future courts will evaluate digital ecosystems and address monopolistic allegations. Although the Sherman and Clayton Acts were written in the past, the Google case proved that written statutes can adapt through time. Some scholars argue that Congress may need to update antitrust laws to handle these growing technologies better. Their argument is based on the rise of AI and how legislative reform may be necessary.
In conclusion, Google was being challenged because plaintiffs were alleging unfair business practices. They were accused of monopolizing search and advertising factors that echoed the antitrust Microsoft case. The framework of the Sherman and Clayton Acts held a foundation and allowed further examination of Google’s conduct. Judge Amit Mehta's ruling confirmed the allegations and allowed for repercussions. All of this shows how antitrust law is still relevant when applied to the regulation of Big Tech influence. It also shows how laws written years ago are still valid precedents for the economy today.
Rund Faraj is a sophomore majoring in pre-business administration.
Sources
Baer, B., & Wheeler, T. (2025, September 9). Google's decision demonstrates need to overhaul competition policy for AI era. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/google-decision-demonstrates-need-to-overhaul-competition-policy-for-ai-era/
CFI Team. (2022). Microsoft antitrust case. Corporate Finance Institute. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/microsoft-antitrust-case/
Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google. (2025, September 2). Justice.gov. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-significant-remedies-against-google
District Court Holds That Google Unlawfully Monopolizes Online Search: Overview and Potential Remedies. (2025). Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11216
Federal Trade Commission. (2013, June 11). Monopolization Defined. Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
Harvard Law Review. (2025, January 10). United States v. Google, LLC. Harvard Law Review. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/united-states-v-google-llc/
Microsoft Conclusions Of Law: U.S. V. Microsoft Corporation; State Of New York, Et Al. V. Microsoft Corporation; Microsoft Corporation V. Eliot Spitzer. (2015, August 14). Justice.gov. https://www.justice.gov/atr/microsoft-conclusions-law-us-v-microsoft-corporation-state-new-york-et-al-v-microsoft
Roller, A. (2024). Google antitrust case explained: What’s next? WhatIs; TechTarget. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/Google-antitrust-case-explained-Whats-next
Schneider, L. (2024, September 24). United States v. Google LLC: A Guide to the Future of Antitrust Law in Big Tech | University of Miami Law Review. Miami.edu. https://lawreview.law.miami.edu/united-states-v-google-llc-a-guide-to-the-future-of-antitrust-law-in-big-tech/
U.S. v. Google — A Landmark Case | Purdue Global Law School. (2025). Purduegloballawschool.edu. https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/google-landmark-case
United States of America, Appellee v. Microsoft Corporation, Appellant, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001). (2019). Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/
