Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200: Thinking Long Term About the Six-Year Judgment Against Google in Recent Monopoly Case

Sept. 15, 2025 9:53 PM

Google is a well-known name to anyone with internet access. Some have even tried to claim that Google has become a generic term for search engine services. However, Google doesn’t only run a popular search engine; there are lots of other business ventures under the Google umbrella. Google’s additional products and services include advertising, password verification, artificial intelligence tools, a web browser, maps and navigation, email, document creation and storage, and social platforms like YouTube.

Google’s power in the search engine space was under scrutiny when the United States Department of Justice and thirty-eight states filed an antitrust lawsuit against the powerhouse technology company. The central claim in the U.S. v. Google complaint was that Google violated section 2 of the Sherman Act—essentially arguing that Google had a monopoly in the general search engine and text ad markets and used that monopoly power to harm competition. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that Google maintained a monopoly and violated section 2 of the Sherman Act.

On September 2, 2025, the court finally produced a remedies judgment on the issue. The decision has drummed up mixed reactions. Some experts claim this decision benefits advertisers and consumers, while others worry about enforcement and monitoring issues and see these remedies as a show of weakness. The judgment includes several remedies and establishes a Technical Committee to oversee implementation and monitor for enforcement. The remedies include:

  • Limitations on Google’s contracting abilities, including prohibitions on certain types of contracts and particular provisions within contracts
  • Requiring Google to share certain types of data with competitors and make certain disclosures
  • Requiring Google to provide search and search text ad syndication services to competitors for five years on fair terms

The court opted for a six-year judgment instead of the ten years DOJ asked for. Though a lot is certain to change in the tech industry over six years, the judgment doesn’t mean Google will stop its own growth and development. Google holds such a dominant share of the market that it’s hard to imagine a competitor catching up.

Though critics say this judgment doesn’t go far enough, going further may hurt competitors more than they expect.

Users choose a search engine primarily because of its functional performance. A search engine, like Google, that already receives a large portion of traffic can invest in aesthetic elements to foster user loyalty and commitment. When a search engine has users who are loyal and committed, they are less likely to defect to other search engines to find better performance.

If over these next six years, users who defect from Google develop loyalty for and commitment to a competitor, the remedies may create a balance that competitors can live with. Even with Google’s data and syndication services, this remains an uphill battle. Google’s competitors need to invest their time and resources wisely and use this judgment strategically.

Google argued that it retains such a large portion of the market share not because of anticompetitive behavior, but simply because it is a better product and service. The court disagreed, but it may turn out to be true in the long run.

If Google can pull this off—uplifting competitors while still retaining the lion’s share of the market—it may be able to set itself up with evidence that it is simply a superior search engine. This would give Google what it needs to rebuff future Sherman Act claims against it (at least with respect to search engines…).

Further, while the courts and Congress can reach Google’s behaviors and structure to even the playing field, they cannot touch the minds of consumers. If users’ loyalty and commitment are unaffected, Google’s losses will be mitigated.

The court declined to include several of the DOJ’s proposed remedies—including the proposed requirement that Google divest from the Chrome browser and the Android operating system—and competitors aren’t satisfied with this set of remedies, but neither is Google. Google has already signaled an intent to appeal the decisions.

Here, if hindsight is 20/20, trying to predict the future is flying blind, but a study published in the Strategic Management Journal indicates that antitrust “wins” against big tech might not always cut the way they’re meant to. Though critics say this judgment doesn’t go far enough, going further may hurt competitors more than they expect. The goal of the ruling isn’t to break up Google’s monopoly power; it’s to stop the anticompetitive behavior. Ultimately, there’s no way to know if it will work until and unless it has played out. One thing that’s certain is that Google will be looking for ways to stay on top.

Cole Pedro

Cole attended DePauw University and majored in Computer Science with a minor in Hispanic Studies. In addition to being a JOLT staff member, Cole is the Director of Events for Women in Law, a Dean’s Fellow, and a member of the Student Bar Association’s merchandise and faculty selection committees. In her free time, Cole enjoys photography, reading, watching motorsports, and cooking.