In a landmark decision, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta declared that Google has illegally maintained a monopoly in the online search and advertising markets. This ruling, delivered on August 5, 2024, is a significant victory for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and several state attorneys general who have been challenging Google’s market dominance for years6†source7†source.

The decision centers around Google’s strategic use of revenue-sharing agreements, which have cemented its search engine as the default option on browsers and mobile devices from companies like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla. These deals, worth billions of dollars annually, were found to stifle competition and prevent rival search engines from gaining traction7†source8†source.

Judge Mehta concluded that Google’s actions violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits monopolization and anti-competitive practices. He noted that Google’s agreements with major device manufacturers and browsers effectively locked up about 90% of the internet search market, preventing competitors like Microsoft from gaining a foothold6†source7†source

The ruling not only finds Google guilty of monopolistic practices but also opens the door for potential remedies, which could include breaking up parts of the company or other structural changes to prevent future anti-competitive behavior. This aspect of the case will be addressed in a separate trial6†source7†source.

Google has announced plans to appeal the decision, arguing that its search engine’s success is due to its superior quality and not because of anti-competitive agreements. However, the ruling is a significant step in the ongoing efforts to regulate the power of Big Tech companies6†source7†source.

This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications, potentially influencing other pending antitrust cases against major tech companies like Meta, Amazon, and Apple. It underscores the resilience of century-old antitrust laws in addressing modern technological monopolies and could reshape how these companies operate in the future7†source 8†source.

The DOJ and state attorneys general hailed the ruling as a historic win for market competition and consumer choice. Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized that no company is above the law and that this decision reinforces the commitment to vigorous antitrust enforcement【6†source】.