At the heart of this case is a federal judge’s finding that Google operates an illegal monopoly in search and search-related advertising. 

Now, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and more than a dozen states are pushing for far-reaching remedies they believe are necessary to restore real competition, measures that Google says would fundamentally damage its business and hand over its advantages to competitors.

Judge Amit Mehta, who is overseeing the case, has already made it clear that the monopoly exists. What remains is how to dismantle it, or at least weaken its grip. 

If approved, the proposals could bar Google from making exclusive search deals with device makers, force it to hand over valuable search data to rivals, and break off its Chrome browser into a separate company.

OpenAI, which has already shaken up the search space with ChatGPT, is eyeing a strategic opening. “If the judge requires Google to sell Chrome, we would be interested,” said Nick Turley, head of product for ChatGPT at OpenAI. 

That was a statement of intent. Turley added that gaining access to Google’s search data would make ChatGPT’s responses “more accurate and more up to date.”

Beyond market share, this trial is about the rules of competition as search and artificial intelligence are converging. Google, with around 90% of the search market, argues the DOJ’s proposals are unjustified. 

It insists that recent changes, such as allowing Samsung and other manufacturers more flexibility to preload rival search and AI apps, show it’s already opening the door to competitors.

But the DOJ isn’t convinced. It wants the judge to go further. One target is Google’s financial arrangements with Apple, which are worth up to $20 billion a year. 

These payments keep Google as the default search engine on Safari, a powerful advantage on iPhones and iPads. Ending or restricting those deals could cost both companies billions and shift how users access information.

Court documents revealed that Google has begun paying Samsung and Motorola to pre-install Gemini, its AI assistant, on devices, a move the DOJ says is an attempt to dominate the next generation of search. 

Interestingly, Apple may already be preparing for a post-Google world. An Apple executive testified that Google searches via Safari have dropped for the first time in two decades. Apple is now exploring alternative options, ChatGPT and Perplexity, within its browser, pointing at a major change in user experience expected next year.

While Google claims that total searches on Apple devices are still rising, the company is not standing still. Last week, it began rolling out “AI Mode” in the United States, a radical change that answers questions with conversational responses instead of blue links. This could be the biggest shift in how we interact with Google since its launch.

William Kovacic, a former Federal Trade Commission chair and antitrust law professor, pointed out the complexity of the situation: “A formidable question that hovers over the entire proceeding is how should the judge take account of emerging developments and the technology that affect the fortunes of all of these companies.”

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has also noted that the company wants to remain embedded in Apple’s ecosystem. He said he hopes to secure a new deal allowing Apple to use Gemini, Google’s AI model, as part of Safari search responses, right alongside ChatGPT.

Mehta’s decision is expected by August. Depending on his ruling, the search engine as we know it may not survive in its current form. 

This follows a federal court’s recent decision, where Google was found guilty of deliberately using its market power to shut out competition in online advertising. Now, the DOJ wants more than accountability, it wants structural change.

According to the newly filed document, the DOJ is not just pushing for asset sales. It wants Google out of the ad exchange business entirely for a decade after the AdX sale. 

That’s an aggressive timeline, stressing how seriously U.S. regulators are taking this case. The department argues that AdX and DFP weren’t just Google ads products, but were the backbone of a system Google used to take over the market and restrict rivals.

In the DOJ’s own words: “This comprehensive set of remedies—including divestiture of Google’s unlawfully obtained monopolies and the products that were the principal instruments of Google’s illegal scheme—is necessary to terminate Google’s monopolies, deny Google the fruits of its violations, reintroduce competition into the ad exchange and publisher ad server markets, and guard against reoccurrence in the future.”

The plan doesn’t end with asset sales. The DOJ wants to dismantle Google’s hold on the infrastructure of online ads by forcing its ad buying tools—like AdWords—to interact fairly with all third-party systems. 

That includes making them interoperable “on non-discriminatory terms with respect to bidding, matching, placement of ads, or provision of information, except at the express instruction of an advertiser.”

Behind this case is an accusation that Google made sure publishers lost money if they didn’t use AdX. That’s not a business strategy—it’s market strangulation. By tightly integrating the ads products, AdX with DFP, the DOJ says Google locked in websites and starved out alternatives.

Google has not taken this lightly. In its response, the company’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, rejected the DOJ’s expanded demands.

“The DOJ conceded Google’s proposed ad tech remedy fully addresses the Court’s decision on liability. The DOJ’s additional proposals to force a divestiture of our ad tech tools go well beyond the Court’s findings, have no basis in law, and would harm publishers and advertisers,” she stated.

Google is instead offering a softer set of solutions: making real-time AdX bids accessible to third-party ad servers and submitting to oversight from an independent compliance monitor—for three years. But to the DOJ, these gestures fall short.

This antitrust fight is only one front. In another case, U.S. regulators are pressing Google to sell off its Chrome browser, following a court ruling that confirmed the company’s monopoly in online search.

The U.S. government is not simply interested in fines or restrictions, it wants to break Google’s monopoly by pulling the system apart, piece by piece. 

Whether that happens will depend on the court’s final ruling on the proposed remedies. 

The trial, which began on Monday, could lead to structural changes in how Google operates. Government lawyers are pushing for remedies that go beyond previous cases, including the possible sale of Google’s Chrome browser and an end to its exclusive deals with smartphone and browser manufacturers.

During his opening statement, DOJ attorney David Dahlquist said, “Now is the time to tell Google and all other monopolists who are out there listening, and they are listening, that there are consequences when you break the antitrust laws.”

The Justice Department argues that Google’s control of search gives it an advantage in AI development, and that its AI products are being used to drive more users back to its search engine, further locking out competitors.

Evidence presented in court showed that Google pays Samsung a monthly fee—described in court as “an enormous sum”—to install the Gemini AI app on Samsung devices. The agreement reportedly runs until 2028.

Google maintains that its AI products are outside the scope of the antitrust case. In a blog post, Lee-Anne Mulholland, a Google executive, wrote, “Adopting the proposed remedies would hold back American innovation at a critical juncture.” The company has said it will appeal the case if the final judgment goes against it.

Prosecutors want the court to take future developments into account and prevent Google from using upcoming AI technology to continue excluding rivals. “This court’s remedy should be forward-looking and not ignore what is on the horizon,” Dahlquist said.

Google’s lawyer, John Schmidtlein, said the proposed actions from the DOJ were excessive. “It’s a wishlist for competitors looking to get the benefits of Google’s extraordinary innovations,” he said. He argued that AI competitors like OpenAI are already performing well in the market. OpenAI’s product head, Nick Turley, is expected to testify during the trial.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta had earlier ruled that Google’s agreements with device manufacturers, which made its search engine the default option, were a key part of maintaining its monopoly.

The DOJ now wants to prohibit such agreements and require Google to license its search results to competitors. If those steps do not create more competition, the DOJ is prepared to ask for the forced sale of the Android operating system.

Google has warned that removing its payment arrangements with companies like Apple and Mozilla would increase the cost of smartphones and threaten the business models of firms that rely on those payments.

This case follows a recent ruling in which Google was found to have violated antitrust laws in the online advertising sector. It is part of a wider series of regulatory actions targeting large technology companies in the U.S. and globally.

Similar actions have been taken in other countries, including India, where Google settled a case involving Android TV practices with the Competition Commission of India.

The case against Google began under the Trump administration and is being continued by the Biden administration. DOJ officials, including Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, were present in court to show support for the trial. “The full support of the DOJ both past and present,” said Dahlquist, referring to the continuity of the case across administrations.

Other tech companies including Meta, Amazon, and Apple are also facing antitrust investigations or legal actions.

“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of Regulatory Affairs.

That “other half” carries weight. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google “willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power” in two critical markets: publisher ad servers and ad exchanges—key infrastructure that powers how digital ads are bought, sold, and delivered across the web.

According to the ruling, Google’s control wasn’t just strong—it was illegal. The court found that the company’s tactics, particularly tying the use of its ad exchange to its ad server, locked out competitors and harmed not just rival firms, but publishers and consumers. 

“In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” Brinkema wrote.

The ruling has set off a chain of consequences. The U.S. Department of Justice is now pushing for a radical solution: a breakup. Specifically, it wants Google to sell off its Google Ad Manager, the umbrella under which both the ad server and exchange operate.

This is the second time in under a year that a U.S. court has declared Google a monopoly—first in search, and now in ads. What makes this one particularly potent is that it hits a core part of Google’s business model: advertising revenue. 

And while the financial impact of this ruling may not shake the company’s bottom line immediately—Google’s shares only dipped 1.4%—the structural risk is enormous.

A second trial is expected, though a date hasn’t been set. That hearing could determine the full extent of penalties, including which assets Google may be forced to spin off to restore competition.

The DOJ’s case argued that Google used classic monopoly-building tactics: buying rivals, locking in clients, and manipulating how ad transactions happened.

While Brinkema cleared Google of wrongdoing related to past acquisitions like DoubleClick and AdMeld, she firmly rejected the company’s defence of its publisher tools.

Still, Google is holding its line. “Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective,” Mulholland said. The judge’s findings, however, suggest that those “choices” may not have been as free as the company claims.

The ruling has drawn praise from regulators and lawmakers. U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi called it “a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolising the digital public square,” adding, “This Department of Justice will continue taking bold legal action to protect the American people from encroachments on free speech and free markets by tech companies.”

Outside the courtroom, market analysts are watching closely. Michael Ashley Schulman, chief investment officer at Running Point Capital, described the ruling as a “major inflection point” for the broader tech industry. 

He warned that it could “increase regulatory risk premiums across major tech stocks,” especially those with tightly integrated services like Amazon and Meta.

Those companies aren’t off the hook either. Meta is currently in court over alleged dominance in personal social networking. Apple and Amazon are facing similar battles over control of mobile ecosystems and online retail.