Google is guilty. So, now what?
Last summer, Google lost a landmark antitrust case. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta declared that “Google is a monopolist,” finding the company acted illegally to maintain dominance over the search engine market.
Now, Google is back in court — this time for the remedy phase of the case, where the U.S. government argues what actions Google should be forced to take to dismantle its monopoly.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) wants to break up the tech giant. Google is fighting to convince the judge that less drastic steps would address concerns, without handing an advantage to foreign rivals. No matter the outcome, this trial is likely to reshape how the internet works.
What this trial isn't about
This case is separate from the antitrust suit Google lost earlier this month over its ad tech monopoly (not to mention a recent antitrust action against Google in Japan). So, these remedies don’t involve Google Ad Manager or its advertising tools.
Instead, this trial’s outcomes could affect nearly everyone who uses the internet.
The DOJ's proposed remedies
To break Google's hold over the search market, the DOJ has proposed several potential remedies:
1. Sell off Chrome
At the top of the DOJ’s list: force Google to divest Chrome, its dominant web browser.
The government argues Chrome gives Google an unfair edge by directing users to Google Search by default. With around 66 percent of the global web browser market share, Chrome is tightly integrated with Google’s search engine, reinforcing the company’s dominance. Already, AI rival OpenAI has expressed interest in buying Chrome.
Selling Chrome would be a worst-case scenario for Google, but it’s not the only remedy on the table.
2. Share user data
The DOJ also wants Google to share some user data with rival companies to help foster competition in the search market.
3. End exclusive deals
A core issue in the original case was Google’s whopping $20 billion-per-year deal with Apple to be the default search engine on iPhones. The DOJ wants to ban such agreements going forward, not just for search, but also for emerging technologies like AI.
For instance, the government wants to prevent Google from paying device makers to exclusively use its AI assistant, Gemini, as generative AI becomes a standard smartphone feature.
4. Unbundle Android
Rather than forcing Google to sell Android, its mobile operating system, the DOJ is pushing for a different remedy: unbundling.
If approved, this would mean third-party Android phone makers could ship devices without pre-installed Google apps like Search or the Play Store, giving users more freedom to choose alternatives.
Google's response
Google has made it clear: it disagrees with the verdict. Now, it's focused on fighting the proposed remedies and appealing the ruling.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
In a post on its official blog, the company said the DOJ’s proposals would hurt consumers, weaken the U.S. economy, and damage America's position as a tech leader. It called the remedies an example of an "interventionist agenda."
Google’s defense is that People use its products because they like them, not because they’re forced to. It argues that breaking up its services or changing default settings would only inconvenience users.
To support its case, Google is expected to call on allies like Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla. Mozilla, for instance, has said it depends on Google’s funding for its Firefox browser — a relationship Google will highlight to show that its partnerships support the broader internet ecosystem.
Google will also heavily emphasize user safety and privacy in its defense. Chrome is based on Google’s open-source Chromium platform, which powers browsers like Microsoft Edge and Opera. Google will argue that a forced sale of Chrome would make it harder to maintain security updates and protect user privacy, not just for Chrome but also for all Chromium-based browsers. The company will likely utilize the same security and privacy argument to fight back against the DOJ remedy that would force Google to share its search data with competitors.
Google is also expected to stress the implications of sharing user data with foreign competitors. It wouldn't be surprising to see Google point to AI companies like China's DeepSeek to make the case that the U.S. government would be ceding ground to these foreign competitors by breaking up Google.
As for remedies, Google has its own suggestions. The company says it would provide smartphone makers with more "flexibility" in choosing which apps are pre-loaded on Android devices. Google will also argue that partnerships like the one with Apple should be allowed to exist, but again, with more "flexibility" regarding the exclusivity of such a deal.
The future of the web
This case isn’t just about today’s search engines. It’s about the future of AI and how we access information online.
Google has warned that the DOJ’s remedies could "chill" its innovation in AI, which it calls “perhaps the most important innovation of our time.” In court, Google may downplay its AI dominance and point to OpenAI’s growing influence in the search business as proof of a competitive market.
OpenAI, for its part, is watching closely. During the trial, one executive even said the company would be interested in buying Chrome if Google is forced to sell. That raises a question: Would replacing one tech giant with another really solve the problem?
Whatever the courts decide, this trial and its verdict will likely cause reverberations across the internet.
