In a groundbreaking legal verdict against a major tech firm in over twenty years, a federal judge has ruled that Google unlawfully monopolized online search and advertising by paying billions annually to companies like Apple and Samsung to make Google the default search engine on their devices.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta stated in his extensive 286-page ruling that Google’s dominance in search queries on smartphones and browsers stifled competition and negatively impacted consumers. Google’s search ads account for a significant portion of its over $300 billion annual revenue.

“Google is a monopolist that has behaved as such to maintain its dominance,” Mehta asserted.

This significant victory for the Department of Justice (DOJ) could transform the way Google operates and might also alter our internet usage and information search methods.

The DOJ initiated antitrust proceedings during the last days of the Trump administration, fulfilling Donald Trump’s commitment to tackle the immense power of technology companies. This focus continued under the Biden administration, which has pursued antitrust actions vigorously.

Attorney General Merrick Garland remarked, “This win against Google is a historic achievement for the American public. No enterprise is above the law, irrespective of its size or influence.”

According to Notre Dame Law School professor Roger Alford, this case represents the most substantial victory for the DOJ in a monopoly suit in many years. “It’s been decades since a case of this scale has unfolded, comparable to Microsoft’s loss in the 1990s,” he noted.

Google has announced plans to appeal the ruling. Kent Walker, president of global affairs, stated, “This decision acknowledges that Google provides the best search engine, yet it suggests we should not be permitted to make it readily available.”

Following the judge’s decision, shares of Google’s parent company Alphabet dropped by nearly 5% on Monday amid a broader downturn in tech stock values.

If the ruling is upheld, it will significantly support other ongoing antitrust investigations against Google and other large tech corporations such as Amazon, Apple, and Meta, stated Spencer Weber Waller, a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

The ruling made on Monday did not include any remedies, which will be determined separately, likely post-appeal. One potential remedy could be to revoke Google’s ability to secure exclusive device deals that have enabled its search engine to dominate the market.

Waller emphasized that finding the appropriate remedies is essential for encouraging competition in the market. “While there are no monetary penalties in these cases, the court must consider whether Google should be fractured in some capacity. More likely, it will require Google to eliminate its exclusive contracts and licensing agreements that have solidified its monopolistic status for years,” he elaborated.

Google maintains that its distribution agreements are standard practice in the industry, akin to how a food manufacturer pays for optimal product placement in a supermarket aisle.

According to Google, users always have the option to change their default search engine, but they choose not to because they prefer Google’s service.

However, if Google weren’t the preset search engine on so many devices, would consumers still favor it for 90% of their web searches?

During the lengthy trial, Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella remarked that Google’s unchecked authority has resulted in a “Google web,” indicating the extent of Google’s overshadowing presence online.

“When you wake up, brush your teeth, and search, you’re searching on Google,” Nadella stated during his testimony. “Everyone talks about the open web, but really, there’s just the Google web.”

Nadella expressed concerns that Microsoft’s competitive disadvantage might grow as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into search technology.

In a research report released Monday, Baird Equity Research senior analyst Colin Sebastian noted various strategies that Microsoft’s competitor Google has employed over the years to gain market share for its Bing search engine, including paying users to use it and embedding it within Microsoft Office.

“Clearly, people prefer Google over Bing,” Sebastian pointed out.

According to Adam Kovacevich, CEO of Chamber of Progress, the ruling favors Microsoft more than consumers or smaller tech companies. “The biggest beneficiary of today’s ruling isn’t the public or small tech firms, it’s Microsoft,” Kovacevich claimed. “Microsoft has historically underfunded its search capabilities, but today’s ruling opens the way for potential default arrangements favoring Bing. That’s unfortunate for consumers who believe Google is superior.”