What’s Next for the U.S. vs. Google Antitrust Case?

With the ruling for Google’s first search antitrust case anticipated in August 2025, attention has shifted to what lies ahead, especially with a new U.S. President and a fresh team of Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in place. The potential changes in leadership and policy direction have sparked curiosity about the future of antitrust enforcement in the tech industry.

Initial indications suggest that the Trump administration intends to maintain the Biden administration’s approach to tackling antitrust issues involving major tech firms like Google. This continuity signals that addressing concerns surrounding market dominance and competition in the tech sector remains a bipartisan priority.

While the specifics of the punishment for Google are yet to be revealed, the broader implications of this case could set a precedent for how future antitrust cases against other tech giants are handled. The case is being closely watched by regulators, industry experts, and businesses alike.

The ongoing scrutiny of Google’s practices highlights the growing importance of ensuring fair competition in an era where technology increasingly shapes the global economy. The DOJ’s continued focus on large tech companies demonstrates a firm commitment to regulating market behaviours that could harm consumers or stifle innovation.

As the August 2025 decision approaches, many expect a clearer roadmap for antitrust policies under the new administration. This will likely influence not only Google but also other prominent players in the tech landscape.

Ultimately, the case underscores the evolving dynamics of antitrust law enforcement and its impact on the tech industry’s future. The decisions made in the coming months could have far-reaching consequences for businesses, regulators, and consumers worldwide.

The rationale behind the current administration’s approach to Google’s antitrust case is markedly different from that of its predecessor. However, recent nominations and appointments within the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicate that President Trump is committed to ensuring Google is held accountable. While the preferred remedies under this administration may diverge from those previously proposed, the overarching objective of addressing Google’s dominance appears to remain intact.

The shift in leadership at the DOJ has raised questions about how the new team will approach the case. Will they pursue stricter penalties or seek alternative solutions to address concerns about market competition? These are critical considerations as the antitrust landscape continues to evolve under the Trump administration.

Before delving into the possible outcomes and strategies under the current administration, it’s worth revisiting the journey so far. Google’s antitrust saga has been years in the making, with accusations of monopolistic practices and market manipulation forming the backbone of the case.

The lawsuit centres on allegations that Google has used its dominance in search and advertising to stifle competition and solidify its market position. This case has become a focal point in the broader conversation about regulating big tech companies and ensuring fair competition.

As the case moves forward, it remains to be seen how the new DOJ team will steer this high-stakes legal battle. With the punishment for Google’s first search antitrust case expected to be announced in August 2025, the tech giant, industry watchers, and consumers alike are eagerly anticipating the next chapter.

The U.S. Vs. Google Case

In August 2024, Federal Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google had violated U.S. antitrust law. The ruling determined that the company had maintained an illegal monopoly by entering into exclusive agreements with firms like Apple. These agreements ensured Google remained the default search engine on various smartphones and web browsers worldwide, solidifying its dominance.

The court also found Google guilty of monopolising general search text advertising. This was primarily due to its ability to raise prices on search advertising products beyond what would have been feasible in a competitive market. The government argued that such pricing would not have been possible under fair market conditions, further demonstrating Google’s undue influence over the sector.

These findings underscore significant concerns about Google’s practices and their impact on both competitors and consumers. By locking in exclusive agreements, the tech giant not only limited competition but also curtailed choices available to users, creating an uneven playing field.

The implications of these rulings extend beyond Google’s specific case, shedding light on broader issues within the digital advertising and search engine markets. As regulators worldwide take notice, this case serves as a crucial moment in the ongoing efforts to address monopolistic behaviours in the tech industry.

With the judgment now in place, discussions have shifted to the next steps. The focus will be on potential remedies to restore market balance and whether this ruling will inspire similar cases against other dominant tech firms globally. This legal precedent may well mark a turning point in antitrust enforcement.

Potential Remedies For Google

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has presented two key filings detailing their proposed solutions to address Google’s monopolistic behaviour. These suggestions aim to curb the company’s dominance and foster a more competitive market.

Among the proposed remedies is restricting Google from securing deals that make its search engine the default option on browsers and devices. At the more extreme end, there’s the possibility of breaking up the company by forcing the sale of its browser, Google Chrome. Such a move would be unprecedented and carry far-reaching implications.

Other remedies under consideration include licensing the Google search algorithm to competitors, compelling Google to share ad feeds with rival companies, and divesting its Android operating system. These measures, if implemented, would significantly alter the landscape of digital advertising and search technology.

The DOJ, under President Biden’s administration, has indicated a preference for divesting Chrome as the most impactful remedy. In their filing dated 20 November 2024, they also emphasised the need to discontinue exclusive agreements between Google and browser or phone manufacturers.

The potential divestiture of Chrome could have widespread consequences. Currently, Chrome is utilised by nearly two-thirds of global internet users. Moreover, trial evidence revealed that click data from Chrome plays a critical role in training Google’s search algorithms using Navboost, a mechanism that helps the company maintain its competitive advantage.

As the case progresses, these proposed measures will likely serve as a blueprint for addressing monopolistic practices in the tech sector. The final decisions will be closely watched by governments and tech companies worldwide, given the significant implications for the digital ecosystem.

Losing access to Chrome’s data could lead to a dramatically different version of Google’s search engine, significantly altering its effectiveness and competitive edge. Such a shift underscores the stakes of the ongoing antitrust case against the tech giant.

In response to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed remedies, Google argued that the measures go far beyond the scope of the original case. They warned that these sweeping changes could undermine America’s leadership in global technology, posing risks to innovation and competitiveness.

As an alternative, Google suggested allowing exclusive agreements with companies like Apple and Mozilla to remain in place, but with added flexibility. This would include the ability to set different default search engines on various platforms or browsing modes.

Google also proposed that Android device manufacturers be allowed to preload multiple search engines and offer Google apps without requiring Google Search or Chrome to be pre-installed. This, they argued, would address concerns about monopolistic behaviour without dismantling their core operations.

The next phase of this high-stakes case will see both sides return to court for remedies litigation in May 2025. A ruling on the appropriate actions to address Google’s dominance is expected by August 2025. The outcome could set a precedent for future antitrust actions in the tech sector.

Trump’s Relevant Nominees

Donald Trump has nominated several key figures whose roles will significantly shape antitrust enforcement, especially in the realm of Big Tech regulation. These appointments signal a bipartisan commitment to maintaining scrutiny over dominant technology companies and their practices.

One notable nomination is Gail Slater, chosen to lead the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. With a background as a policy advisor to Vice President-elect J.D. Vance and expertise in tech policy from her time at the National Economic Council, Slater is poised to take on high-profile cases, including the ongoing antitrust battle against Google. Her leadership will be critical in determining the future trajectory of antitrust enforcement under this administration.

Another key appointment is Andrew N. Ferguson, who will serve as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Ferguson has previously highlighted the need to reassess the FTC’s aggressive approach to mergers and acquisitions while ensuring robust oversight of tech platforms. His balanced stance on competition policy could influence the direction of investigations and regulatory measures targeting the technology sector.

Mark Meador has been tapped to fill the role of FTC Commissioner, a position formerly held by Ferguson. Known for his strong pro-enforcement views, Meador brings extensive experience from his tenure with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where he was instrumental in drafting legislation to address competitive practices in the tech industry. His appointment reinforces the administration’s intention to hold dominant tech firms accountable.

These appointments suggest that the Trump administration will maintain, if not intensify, the pressure on major technology companies, continuing the groundwork laid during the Biden era. With this lineup, a firm focus on competition and fairness in the tech industry is expected to remain a central priority.

The Trump Administration’s Views On Google’s Antitrust Case

Former President Donald Trump’s disdain for Big Tech companies, particularly Google, has been evident since his first term in office. His criticisms of the tech giant stem from several factors, most notably his belief that Google’s search engine is “rigged” to present negative stories about him. Trump has also criticised Google’s misinformation moderation policies and claimed that their search results exhibit a bias against conservatives, framing this as a restriction on “free speech.”

Despite his long-standing criticisms, Trump has expressed reservations about breaking up Google. He has suggested that such a move might harm the company irreparably rather than promote fairness and competition. Trump has also argued that dismantling Google could project weakness on the global stage, claiming that “China is afraid of Google,” and a breakup might undermine the U.S.’s competitive edge in technology.

Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has similarly voiced strong opinions about Big Tech. He has previously called for the breakup of Google and praised the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission Chair, Lina Khan, for her assertive stance on antitrust enforcement. Vance’s views suggest a continuation of robust regulatory scrutiny of technology giants under the new administration.

While it remains uncertain whether Trump’s administration will fully support breaking up Google, their rhetoric indicates a shared commitment to fostering stronger competition in the tech industry. This approach aligns with the bipartisan focus on holding dominant tech platforms accountable for their market practices.

Final Thoughts

There is a significant amount of time between Trump assuming office and the resumption of the remedies litigation in the Google antitrust case, set for May 2025. In this period, the Department of Justice (DOJ) will still need to present their arguments for why Google should be compelled to sell Chrome. However, if the newly appointed DOJ officials no longer share this viewpoint, they will need to present a compelling case for alternative remedies that they deem more appropriate.

Given the recent appointees, it seems likely that the DOJ will take a more aggressive stance against Google. These officials are expected to push for remedies they believe would be most effective in promoting competition and holding Google accountable. This indicates that the new administration may continue to press for substantial changes in how Google operates, particularly in its dominant market positions.

For those who believe that action should be taken against Google, Trump’s current anti-Google stance may serve as a boon, even for those who might not fully agree with his reasoning. His administration’s approach to tackling the issue of Big Tech dominance could align with broader calls for regulatory action, potentially accelerating the push for change in the tech industry.