Just Google it. The phrase is a testament to how synonymous the internet giant has become with finding information online, as its services are now ubiquitous across everything from smartphones to laptops and even cars. However, this success has come at a cost, according to the U.S. government. Since 2023, two separate federal judges and a federal jury have ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly in its search engine, online advertising business, and app store. Google is currently fighting to overturn those decisions, which could force the nearly $2 trillion company to split up — a move that would mark the biggest breakup of a tech company since AT&T.
It’s not just Google facing scrutiny; other tech giants such as Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple have also come under antitrust investigations regarding their operations. The stakes are particularly high for Google as AI technology surges and chatbots threaten to challenge its core business. May 9, 2025, marks the end of a three-week series of hearings that could determine the future of one of the most important tech companies in history, potentially reshaping the way billions of people use the internet. A decision is expected in August.
So, how did Google get so big? The answer might be sitting in your hand. Today, Google is much more than a search engine. A series of acquisitions and product launches from the early 2000s positioned it at the helm of the most popular corners of the internet, from YouTube — which has become teens’ most used social media platform — to the world’s most popular web browser and widely used smartphone software.
“The friction to switch from Google to something else, it wasn’t worth it,” said Robert Siegel, a lecturer in management at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. “Why would you? You’re not getting better results.” Google’s search engine took off in the late 1990s and early 2000s because it had a novel way of ranking results: by importance, based on how often other sites linked to them, shedding light on which websites had more credibility and relevance. Rivals like Yahoo and Ask Jeeves indexed web results more like “a file folder,” organizing results by topic, according to David Brumley, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.
Google inked contracts worth tens of billions of dollars to make it the default search provider on iPhones, while also striking deals to preload its search engine and browser on Android phones. Those arrangements, the Justice Department and a group of states argue, along with Google’s Chrome browser being so closely tied to its search engine, stifled competition in the search market. Last year, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta deemed those deals anticompetitive, calling Google a “monopolist” in online search. The Department of Justice (DOJ) now wants Google to either spin off or make major changes to its Chrome browser and Android operating system.
Google has stated that it plans to appeal the case, calling it “backwards looking” at “a time of intense competition and unprecedented innovation.” In the courtroom, Google argued that the DOJ’s proposal would pose security risks, hamper its ability to invest in research and development, and harm Chrome as well as other businesses that rely on Google Search. Instead, it is proposing to amend its browser agreements to allow companies to switch their default browser provider every 12 months, among other changes.
The powerful search engine has also led to a lucrative advertising business, which brought in $66.9 billion in revenue during the first quarter of 2025. “Google was able to basically sell a lot of ads because they were able to deliver the most eyeballs, and they were able to deliver a lot of, the most, eyeballs because they sold a lot of ads,” Siegel explained. Google developed a technology “stack” that enabled brands to buy online ads and publishers to sell online ad space all through one company.
In April, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google was able to “establish and protect its monopoly power” by tying its ad server and publisher exchange together. However, she sided with Google by ruling against one of the government’s claims related to the search giant’s online advertiser ad networks. Google is also appealing that case, which could force it to divest part of its online advertising business or, more likely, restrict how it can operate or price its services. The DOJ is pushing for Google to sell two parts of its ad businesses to restore competition, according to a May 5 court filing.
Historically, U.S. regulators have left large companies alone if they had complementary, but not overlapping, offerings, only going after “vertical” mergers where companies bought up competitors, according to Abiel Garcia, a partner with law firm Kesselman, Brantly Stockinger LLP. However, U.S. regulators have begun to view companies with complementary services as also being problematic, said Garcia, who formerly served as deputy attorney general for the California Justice Department.
The legal stakes are especially high for Google amid predictions that AI tools will take over some of the functions of search engines. Market research firm Gartner estimated last year that traditional search engine volume would drop 25% by 2026 as consumers gravitate towards AI tools. An Apple executive testified in court during this week’s hearings that Google search queries on Apple devices have decreased, according to Bloomberg. (Google stated that it “continues to see overall query growth in search.”) Furthermore, OpenAI’s ChatGPT poses stiff competition; analysts at Barclays wrote in a research note from April 24, 2025, that Google’s Gemini is roughly 10% of ChatGPT’s size on most user growth metrics. “The question is, will AI solutions give us better products?” Siegel pondered. “And that might cause people to switch and move away over time.”
In a related development, Italy's Moltiply Group announced on May 9, 2025, that it is suing Alphabet's Google, seeking damages of 2.97 billion euros ($3.34 billion) for abuse of its dominant market position, as previously recognized by the EU Court of Justice. Moltiply operates the popular Italian price comparison website Trovaprezzi.it. Its claim argues that Google's actions hindered the growth of its subsidiary 7Pixel between 2010 and 2017, favoring Google Shopping instead. The claim was filed at a Milan court, according to Italian daily Corriere della Sera.
Google responded, stating, “We disagree strongly with these exorbitant private damages claims which disregard this successful and growing industry.” The European Commission had previously fined Google in 2017 for using its own price comparison shopping service to gain an unfair advantage over smaller European rivals. In September 2024, Google lost a final appeal against a 2.42 billion euro fine. A Google spokesperson added that the changes made in 2017 following the European Commission’s decision are working as intended, noting that the number of comparison shopping sites in Europe using Google's shopping features has multiplied from just 7 to more than 1,550.
