Written By: Dannah C. Henderson
If you’ve ever searched for a restaurant, booked a flight, or checked the weather online, chances are you used Google. For many of us, “googling” has become second nature; it’s hard to imagine the internet without it. But in a packed federal courtroom on May 30, 2025, the U.S. Government argued that this very convenience masks something more troubling: an illegal monopoly that threatens competition and consumer choice.
That hearing marked the closing arguments in the biggest antitrust case against a tech company of this century. At the center is a simple but far-reaching question: Has Google become too powerful?
A Landmark Case for Big Tech
According to one federal judge, the answer is yes. In a major ruling earlier this year, Judge Amit Mehta found that Google broke antitrust laws by maintaining an illegal monopoly over online search.
The antitrust lawsuit, originally filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2020, accused Google of using its market power to block rivals and keep its lead in online search and search advertising. After a lengthy trial, Judge Mehta ruled in March 2025 that Google had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by illegally maintaining its monopoly.
On May 30, 2025, the DOJ and Google returned to court to deliver closing arguments on remedies—steps the court can require Google to take to fix the problem. The case could shape not only Google’s future but also how fair competition is defined in the digital age.
What the DOJ Wants and Why
The DOJ emphasized that winning the case was just the first step. Now, the focus is on restoring competition to a market. At the heart of the DOJ’s concern are Google’s multibillion dollar agreements with major companies like Apple and Samsung to be the default search engine on their products. The Government argues these agreements lock out rival search engines before they get a fair shot.
To change that, the DOJ has asked the court to restrict Google from making these exclusive default search agreements. They’ve also raised the possibility of broader structural remedies, such as making google sell the Chrome browser.
Remedies of this scale are rare. No company has been broken up by an antitrust court order since AT&T in the 1980s. Courts tried to break up Microsoft before the turn of the century, but failed. Regardless, the DOJ argues the stakes are higher now because Google’s power extends across the internet and into emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.
Thus, the DOJ believes a modest fix won’t work. Unless Google’s business model is changed significantly, the agency argued, real competition won’t return. And as AI tools become more central to how people access information, that gap may only grow.
How Google Sees It and What They Fear
Google says it’s being punished for creating a product that people prefer. Its lawyers argue that the company’s dominance isn’t the result of any unfair strategy but simply a reflection of quality. Users are free to choose other search engines, and many do. If competitors haven’t caught on, Google says, it’s not because they’ve been blocked. It’s because they haven’t offered something better.
On the question of remedies, Google is urging caution. The company claims that banning default agreements would go too far and could hurt consumers. These deals help fund development and allow Google to integrate search smoothly into other services and devices. The result, they say, is a better and more secure experience for users.
Google’s broader concern is that any forced changes could backfire. Unwinding long-term contracts and redesigning how search engines work might make the product worse or introduce new problems. Google also warns that breaking up parts of its business could slow innovation and confuse users.
When it comes to AI, Google argues it’s in a highly competitive space. Rivals like Microsoft and OpenAI are actively building their own AI-driven search tools. Google says its continued development in this area doesn’t show monopoly power but instead reflects the race to keep up. Overregulating too soon, the company argues, could freeze innovation at a critical moment.
A Broader Debate About Fixing Digital Monopolies
This case is about more than just one company. In the past, the Government has stepped in when companies charged too much or blocked out competitors in obvious ways. But Google’s power works differently. It’s not about price tags—search is free. It’s about how people find information, and whether one company should get to control that pathway.
It is no secret that winning an antitrust lawsuit is only half the battle. Courts have long struggled with how to actually fix the market once monopoly power is found. In fast-changing tech industries, it’s especially tricky. Remedies that worked decades ago, like breaking up a company, may not fit today’s complex digital market. The judge’s decisions here could set a new standard for how to close that gap, or it might reveal just how tough it is to police digital monopolies effectively.
Either way, this trial is pushing the country to rethink how we define competition, power, and fairness online. The internet might still feel free, but this case shows us that someone owns Boardwalk—and it’s not for sale.
Sources
Complaint, United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2020).
David McCabe, Fate of Google’s Search Monopoly Is Now in a Judge’s Hands, The New York Times (May 30, 2025).
David McCabe, Will a Federal Judge Break up Google?, The New York Times (April 21, 2025).
Jacyln Diaz, Should a court break up Google? The tech giant made its final stand today, NPR (May 30, 2025, 6:32pm).
Michael Liedtke & Alan Suderman, Judge wrestles with far-reaching remedy proposals in US antitrust case against Google, APNews (May 30, 2025, 7:26pm).
United States v. Google LLC, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74956 (E.D. Va. 2025).
United States v. Google LLC, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19748 (D.C. 2025).
15 U.S.C.S. § 2 (2025).