US judge rules Google is monopoly in key anti-trust case

A US judge ruled Monday in a carefully awaited antitrust case that Google had a monopoly with its dominating search engine.


The unprecedented decision against a “big tech” behemoth could change how the industry operates in the future.

District Court Judge Amit Mehta determined that Google maintained a monopoly on search and text ads through exclusive distribution agreements, making it the “default” option that users were likely to utilize on gadgets.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta said in his verdict.

The internet behemoth “has a major, largely unseen advantage over its rivals: default distribution,” he noted.

The antitrust trial between US prosecutors and Google concluded in May with a two-day hearing.

The case was the first of five major claims brought by the US government to trial, with Meta, Amazon, Apple, and a separate case against Google also scheduled for federal court.

The trial, held in Washington, marked the first time the US Department of Justice had fought a major technology business in court since Microsoft was pursued more than two decades ago for the dominance of its Windows operating system.

Mehta presided over months of evidence late last year, during which Google CEO Sundar Pichai and other top officials took the stand.

The government’s argument revolved around Google’s enormous payments to Apple and other companies to keep its world-leading search engine as the default on iPhones, web browsers, and other devices.


Court testimony indicated that these payments total in the tens of billions of dollars every year to maintain its prime real estate on Apple devices or the Safari and Mozilla browsers.

The Department of Justice lawyers contended that Google acquired and maintained its supremacy — and choked competitors — through these default agreements, which also extended to Samsung and other device makers.

Mehta, however, determined that Google’s infringement of the Sherman Act had no “anticompetitive effects.”