The big win against Google must be only the beginning

In 2020, under the leadership of then-Attorney General William Barr, the Trump Department of Justice and 11 state attorneys general filed a complaint alleging that Google maintained an illegal monopoly over internet search, violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

During a nine-week bench trial, the Department of Justice painstakingly laid out its case. The government argued that a network of exclusionary contracts, ensuring that Google was the preset default search engine on browsers and mobile devices, was key to Google’s unlawful dominance.

The Big Tech companies represent a 21st-century speech cartel that is simply incompatible with the free flow of information in a democratic society.

On Monday, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed, finding in a nearly 300-page ruling that "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act."

His opinion clearly explains how Google maintained its dominance and quality: by barring other rivals from being the search default on browsers and mobile devices through exclusive contracts worth billions. Google capitalized on the fact that users rarely change their default settings, thereby denying competitors the scale they needed to compete.

Despite the company’s attempts to obfuscate at every turn — a records retention policy that the judge called “negligent,” attempts to keep details of the trial secret, and the millions of dollars it spends annually on lobbying and laundering its business positions through a network of policy organizations — Google’s practices couldn’t withstand the glaring light shone on it by the Sherman Act.

And for that, the significance of this ruling cannot be overstated, both for the political power Google wields in Washington and as proof that our antitrust laws still work.

But this one decision will not by itself change the shape or nature of the threat Big Tech poses to speech and markets across the board. That pressure must continue, and unless or until Congress steps up, it must continue through the courts.

Rampant manipulation

For decades, the Big Tech powerhouses have been using their outsized market share to influence and outright manipulate speech and information flow. Just this week, Google admitted to the House Judiciary Committee that it omitted results of the attempted assassination attempt on Donald Trump and populated stories about Vice President Kamala Harris when users searched Trump’s name.

Google is simply picking up where it left off in 2020, when the company suppressed then-candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign website, hid searches about President Trump, and restricted stories related to the now-infamous Hunter Biden laptop — about which 79% of Americans say “truthful” coverage would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election.

Big Tech companies represent a 21st-century speech cartel that is incompatible with the free flow of information in a democratic society. Yes, DuckDuckGo, Bing, Parler, and other search engines and social media companies exist — some with the backing of major business interests. However, as Mehta’s ruling made clear in the case of Google, the mere presence of competitors (even large ones) does not indicate a functioning marketplace. Rivals must have a real chance to compete.

This is why antitrust enforcement matters — to make sure the market works for all entrants, not just the ones that can spend billions to exclude competitors while buying up political capital and policy shops in Washington.

Compete them away

But it doesn’t just begin and end with Google. The Justice Department is also suing Apple, alleging that Apple has illegally monopolized the smartphone market. The lawsuit alleges Apple prevented innovation in the pursuit of profits in its closed ecosystem at the expense of consumers. Apple prevented third parties from engaging in its ecosystem and allegedly lowered message quality between Android and Apple products.

The FTC’s lawsuit against Amazon, joined by 17 state attorneys general, is now set for a trial in 2026. This antitrust lawsuit against Amazon accuses the massive online retailer of undercutting and pushing out sellers from its platform for cheaper products.

Meta also faces litigation. In December 2020, the FTC and more than 40 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against Meta alleging the social media giant illegally acquired WhatsApp and Instagram. While the original lawsuit was dismissed in 2021, the FTC amended its suit alleging that, since 2011, Meta had maintained “a dominant share of the relevant market for U.S. personal social networking services.”

The swiftest way to address the speech concerns posed by massive ideological market actors like Google, Meta, and Apple is to compete them away. But a robust marketplace, policed by antitrust enforcement, is a prerequisite. The case against Google is a victory toward that end. But it must not stop there. To paraphrase a former Meta executive, it’s time to lean in.