Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
With Google’s first search antitrust case expected to be sentenced in August 2025, the question is what will happen now with a new US president and a new Department of Justice (DOJ) appointment.
Early signs suggest that the Trump administration will largely stay the course of the Biden administration when it comes to enforcing antitrust measures against major tech companies, including Google.
Their reasoning differs drastically from that of the previous administration, but recent appointments and appointments to the DOJ suggest that President Trump is serious about holding Google accountable, even if their preferred remedies differ.
Before we get into that, let’s recap what happened so far.
USA vs. Google case
In August 2024, federal judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google violated US antitrust law by maintaining an illegal monopoly through exclusive deals it had with companies like Apple to be the world’s default search engine on smartphones and web browsers.
In addition, Google was found guilty of monopolizing general text search advertising because Google was able to raise the prices of search advertising products more than the government argued would be expected or possible in a fair market.
Potential Legal Remedies for Google
The DOJ has submitted two filings with its proposals to remedy Google’s monopolistic actions.
Proposed remedies range from contract restrictions that make Google’s search engine the default in browsers and devices, to breaking up the company by forcing it to sell Google’s Chrome browser.
Other intriguing drugs that have been suggested include bundling Google’s search algorithm with competitors, forced licensing of ad feeds with competitors, and taking away the Android operating system.
The DOJ under Biden made it clear in its the latest application November 20, 2024, that abandoning Chrome is their preferred option, along with ending exclusive contracts with browsers and phone companies.
The implications of Chrome’s termination are also the most far-reaching – not only that Chrome uses almost two-thirds of the world’s internet users, but through this trial we learned that click data from Chrome is used to train search algorithms using Navboost, helping Google maintain its competitive edge.
Losing Chrome’s data would almost certainly guarantee a drastically different Google search engine.
Google filed its response with the DOJarguing that the proposed remedies are much broader than what was discussed in the case and that this could hinder America’s leadership in the world of technology.
Instead, they proposed allowing exclusive deals with companies like Apple and Mozilla, but with the ability to set a different default search engine on different platforms and browsing modes.
He also suggested that Android device manufacturers could preload multiple search engines, as well as preload Google apps without Google Search or Chrome.
Both sides will return to court to litigate the remedies in May 2025, with a decision expected in August 2025.
What is happening now
Back to the question at hand: What happens when Trump takes office?
Early signals, including Trump’s nominations to key roles at the FTC and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, suggest the administration will continue to use a heavy hand against big tech companies facing antitrust problems like Google. However, their solutions may differ from the currently proposed drugs.
Trump’s relevant candidates
Trump has named several key individuals to influence the enforcement of antitrust policies, particularly in relation to large technology companies.
These appointments show that the crushing of the tech giants is likely to continue in what is actually a surprising bipartisan effort. Trump’s key candidates include:
- Gail Slater: Nominated to head the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Slater has experience as a policy adviser to Vice President-elect JD Vance and technical policy experience at the National Economic Council. If confirmed, she would inherit the antitrust case against Google.
- Andrew N. Ferguson: Appointed chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Ferguson expressed his intention to overhaul the agency’s approach to mergers and acquisitions, which has been unusually strong against mergers and acquisitions, while still maintaining oversight of dominant technology platforms.
- Mark Meador: Appointed as an FTC commissioner, a role previously held by Ferguson, Meador is known for his law enforcement stance, particularly regarding technology companies, in his previous work with the US Senate Judiciary Committee. His previous work includes drafting legislation aimed at addressing competitive practices in the technology industry.
While all three candidates are deeply entrenched in the Republican Party, they are all united in their stances on law enforcement when it comes to Big Tech.
This is a departure from the typical Republican pro-business, anti-regulation position, indicating Trump’s seriousness in curbing the power of Google and other tech giants.
The Trump administration’s views on Google’s antitrust case
Trump’s disdain for big tech companies, including Google, has been consistent since his first term as president.
Why does he hate Google so much? Several reasons seem most likely:
- He requested the search engine is “fixed” because he tells negative stories about him.
- He sees the undermining of big tech companies as a way to promote “free speech” because of their policy of moderating misinformation, and claims that search results biased against conservatives.
Despite this seemingly constant anti-Google stance, President Trump has also proposed breaking up Google it can destroy a company but to help promote fairness and competition.
He also warned that cracking down on Google can make the US look weaker to foreign powers because “China is afraid of Google.”
Elsewhere in the administration, Vice President Vance has previously called for the breakup of Google and praised the chairman of the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, for her aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement.
It remains to be seen whether they will decide to take a position that is in favor of breaking Google, but it seems that they will come to office with the desire to strengthen competition in this market.
Final thoughts
A lot of time has passed between Trump taking office and the May 2025 resumption of legal remedies for the case against Google.
The DOJ still needs to argue why it believes Google should be forced to sell Chrome, and if that’s no longer the belief of the DOJ appointees, it will have to argue why other remedies make more sense.
It seems reasonable to assume, based on the appointment, that they will undertake some major changes at Google and push for the remedies they believe would be most effective in boosting competition.
If you’re someone who believes that something needs to be done against Google, Trump’s current stance against Google may work in your favor regardless of whether you agree with his reasoning for it.
More resources:
Featured Image: PanuShot/Shutterstock