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. 

According to the accelerator, Google has effectively scared off competition and limited innovation.

In a court filing dated 9 May, the firm described Google as a monopolist that has “chilled independent firms like YC from funding and accelerating innovative startups that could otherwise have challenged Google’s dominance.” The document was filed in support of the U.S. government’s antitrust case against Google.

Y Combinator argued that venture capitalists have become more wary of backing emerging companies in search and AI, industries the accelerator describes as being trapped within a “kill zone” created by Google’s overwhelming control. “The result is a landscape that has been artificially stunted and stagnant,” the filing states.

While it is not explicitly calling for a breakup of Google, Y Combinator says change must happen. It wants Google to stop locking up default search agreements, specifically, the multibillion-dollar deal that keeps it the default engine on Apple devices. It also demands access to Google’s search index, so new developers and researchers can train competitive AI tools using the same data Google relies on.

“Google has effectively frozen the web search and text advertising markets for over a decade,” the filing adds. Y Combinator is particularly concerned that without intervention, Google will continue to suppress innovation in agentic and question-based AI systems, tools that have the potential to bolster how users access and interact with online information.

YC CEO Garry Tan later clarified the organisation’s position on social media: “We love Google. But we want little tech to succeed, too.” He also warned that if Google fails to implement reforms within five years, regulators should be ready to “bring the spinoff hammer.”

Google’s legal issues have been increasing recently. Last year, it lost a significant antitrust case tied to its stranglehold on the search market. Remedies are expected by August 2025 and could include forced divestments such as spinning off Chrome.

The timing of YC’s filing is particular, given its recent collaborations with Google. The tech giant previously invested in YC-backed Infisical, acquired Flutter in 2014, and Fridge in 2011. Google Cloud even provided dedicated GPU access to YC startups last year. Co-founder Larry Page made a rare public appearance at a YC event in December.

But there’s another aspect, YC’s deep ties to OpenAI, a direct rival to Google in the AI-powered search arena. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman formerly led Y Combinator, and OpenAI was the first team to emerge from YC Research.

This connection has been noticed. VC Sheel Mohnot, who spotted the brief online, pointed out, “The biggest beneficiary of YC’s proposed remedies, by far, would be OpenAI.”

However, even with the strategic implications, Y Combinator has not offered specific examples of startups it might have funded were it not for Google’s monopoly.

Google, for its part, has remained silent on the brief. It previously defended itself in a blog post, calling the DOJ’s proposed remedies “radical and sweeping” and warning they could harm businesses, consumers, and developers.

Y Combinator believes the growth of tech depends on loosening Google’s hold, and it’s willing to put that on the record.

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.

The decision, delivered on 21 January 2025, also mandates changes to Google’s operations within the country.

The KPPU concluded that Google’s policies unfairly restricted competition by requiring application developers to use the GPB System exclusively for digital product transactions in the Google Play Store. 

Developers who failed to comply faced penalties, including the removal of their apps from the store. Google also charged developers service fees ranging from 15% to 30%, which the KPPU found to be excessive compared to other payment platforms.

The regulator’s investigation revealed that the mandatory use of GPB didn’t stop at restricting alternative payment methods, it also led to increased costs for developers and app users. These costs, in turn, caused a decline in app usage, reduced transactions, and limited revenue generation.

The KPPU further disclosed that the Google Play Store, pre-installed on all Android devices in Indonesia, dominates the market, holding more than 50% of the app distribution share. The regulator determined that this allowed Google to enforce restrictive policies that hindered competition and repressed technological development.

In addition to the fine, Google has been ordered to discontinue the mandatory use of the GPB System and to introduce the User Choice Billing (UCB) programme. Under this initiative, developers must be offered a service fee reduction of at least 5% for a year after the decision is legally binding.

Google has 30 days to pay the fine or face additional penalties, including a 2% monthly interest for late payment. If the company chooses to appeal, it must provide a bank guarantee for 20% of the fine’s value, as stipulated by Indonesian regulations.

Reacting to the ruling, a Google spokesperson, Danielle Cohen, stated: “We strongly disagree with the KPPU’s decision and will appeal. Our current practices foster a healthy, competitive Indonesian app ecosystem, offering a secure platform, global reach, and choice, including user choice billing — which enables alternatives to Google Play’s billing system.”

Cohen further noted Google’s contributions to Indonesia’s tech sector through programmes like the Indie Games Accelerator and Play Academy, adding, “We remain committed to complying with Indonesian law and will continue collaborating with the KPPU and stakeholders throughout the appeals process.”

This decision adds to several global regulatory challenges Google faces over its alleged anti-competitive behaviour.

Similar investigations are ongoing in Japan, with its regulator expected to issue a ruling soon, while past fines have been imposed in countries including India, South Korea, and France.

The DOJ, along with several state antitrust enforcers, filed the recommendations with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that Google’s business strategies have limited innovation and unfairly excluded competitors from market opportunities. 

The agency also noted it will establish a court-appointed technical committee to oversee compliance with the proposed measures.  

Key Proposals to Break Monopoly

Among the remedies outlined, the DOJ called for Google to end exclusive agreements with companies such as Apple, where it pays billions annually to secure its search engine as the default on devices. 

Added to this, Google would be barred from using its Android operating system to strengthen its search dominance. Should other measures fail, the agency suggested Google sell Android entirely.  

Another recommendation involves mandating Google to license its search data to rivals at minimal costs and share user data, excluding information restricted by privacy regulations. The DOJ claims such measures would lower barriers for competitors and reinvigorate the search market.  

The filing further proposes that Google be prohibited from entering into exclusionary deals or acquiring search and advertising technology competitors. Websites would also have the option to opt out of contributing their data for Google’s artificial intelligence tools.  

Google’s Response

Google, however, said the proposals are excessive and detrimental. In a statement, Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer, Kent Walker, described the measures as “radical overreach” that would harm users, developers, and small businesses while undermining the country’s technological edge.  

Walker argued that forcing the company to divest Chrome or Android could compromise user security and privacy. He also noted that such measures could negatively impact companies like Mozilla, which rely on partnerships with Google to sustain their services.  

Google maintained that its products, including Chrome and Android, are built on open-source frameworks, making them accessible to developers worldwide. The tech giant plans to file its counter-proposals in December.    

If the court adopts the DOJ’s recommendations, a five-member technical committee would oversee their implementation. This committee would have broad powers, including accessing Google’s internal documents and software code, to ensure compliance.  

The DOJ’s filing claims that Google has created a “perpetual feedback loop” by leveraging its dominant platforms to attract more users, gather extensive data, and increase advertising revenue. Breaking this cycle, prosecutors argue, is critical to restoring competition in the market.  

The trial to determine the final remedies is scheduled for April 2025.

This follows an August ruling that determined Google had unlawfully monopolised the search engine market.  

According to insiders, the DOJ will request that U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over the earlier case, impose additional remedies targeting Google’s Android operating system and its artificial intelligence practices. 

This is one of the most significant moves by the Biden administration to rein in Big Tech’s influence over digital markets.  

Chrome, which commands nearly two-thirds of the global browser market, is at the heart of Google’s advertising empire. Its integration with Google Search and its ability to collect user data have been critical in bolstering the company’s dominance in online advertising. 

Reports reveal that Chrome’s pervasive presence limits competition, while Google maintains that its products succeed based on quality and consumer choice.  

In a statement, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for Regulatory Affairs, described the DOJ’s proposals as part of a “radical agenda” that risks harming consumers rather than promoting competition. 

Google plans to appeal any final rulings it finds unfavourable, with Judge Mehta expected to deliver a decision on remedies by August 2025.  

Potential corrective measures include ending agreements in which Google pays substantial sums to device makers like Apple to make its search engine the default option.

Again, the DOJ is considering requiring Google to provide advertisers with greater control over where their ads appear and more options for content creators to limit their materials from being used in Google’s AI products.  

The DOJ may reserve the Google Chrome divestiture as a last resort if other measures fail to create a competitive marketplace. 

Meanwhile, Google insists its search engine faces competition from platforms like Amazon and that users retain the freedom to switch to alternative browsers or search engines.  

A trial on the proposed remedies is scheduled for April 2025.