The Antitrust Movement Against Big Tech

The European Commission imposed a record 2.42 billion euro fine on Google for abusing its dominance in general internet search by giving illegal advantage to its own comparison shopping service. The Commission found that Google had systematically positioned its own product listings above those of competitors in search results. It was the largest antitrust fine ever imposed by the EU at the time and signaled an aggressive new phase in transatlantic tech regulation.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced a broad review of whether major technology platforms had reduced competition, stifled innovation, or harmed consumers. The review explicitly named market-leading online platforms — signaling an end to the bipartisan hands-off approach that had characterized U.S. antitrust enforcement toward tech companies since the 1990s. The announcement coincided with parallel investigations by the FTC and a House Judiciary Committee investigation into digital markets.

The U.S. Department of Justice, joined by 11 Republican state attorneys general, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google alleging the company illegally maintained monopolies in general search services and search advertising through exclusive distribution agreements. The suit focused on Google's multi-billion dollar payments to Apple, mobile carriers, and browser makers to be the default search engine. This was the most significant government antitrust case against a company since the Microsoft case of 1998.

The Federal Trade Commission filed an amended antitrust complaint against Facebook (renamed Meta in October 2021) alleging the company illegally maintained a personal social networking monopoly through a strategy of acquiring potential competitors — specifically Instagram (acquired 2012) and WhatsApp (acquired 2014) — rather than competing on merit. The FTC also alleged that Meta imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party developers. A federal judge had dismissed the FTC's original complaint in June 2021 for lacking sufficient evidence.

The FTC and 17 state attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, alleging the company illegally maintained monopoly power in the online retail market by punishing sellers who offered lower prices elsewhere. The FTC argued that Amazon's practices — including requiring sellers to use its fulfillment services for Prime eligibility and penalizing sellers who undercut Amazon's prices on other platforms — raised prices for consumers and degraded the shopping experience. The complaint sought structural remedies including potential breakup of the company.

The European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) came into full effect, designating six major tech companies — Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, and ByteDance (TikTok) — as "gatekeepers" subject to sweeping new obligations. The DMA requires gatekeepers to allow interoperability, refrain from self-preferencing their own services, allow users to install third-party app stores, and obtain consent for data combination across services. Non-compliance can result in fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue, rising to 20% for repeat violations. The DMA represents the most comprehensive ex-ante regulatory framework for digital markets in the world.

The U.S. Department of Justice, joined by 16 state attorneys general, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple alleging the company illegally monopolized the smartphone market through anticompetitive practices. The complaint focused on Apple's restrictions on cross-platform messaging, its limitation of "super apps," blocking of cloud gaming services, and restrictions on third-party digital wallets. The DOJ argued that these practices locked users into the iPhone ecosystem and raised switching costs beyond competitive levels.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in general search services and text advertising, finding that the company's exclusive distribution agreements with Apple, Mozilla, and mobile carriers violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The landmark ruling was the first major decision in U.S. antitrust law against a technology company since the Microsoft case. The remedies phase, which could include structural remedies such as breaking up Google or behavioral remedies such as ending default agreements, was scheduled to begin in September 2024.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued the remedies ruling in the DOJ's search monopoly case, barring Google's exclusive search distribution deals with Apple and Android partners while rejecting the government's demands to force a divestiture of Chrome or broad data-sharing mandates. The judge cited the rise of generative AI competitors such as ChatGPT as evidence of a changed competitive landscape, and expressed skepticism that structural separation would remedy the harm. Critics called the behavioral-only remedies insufficient to restore competition, while Google framed the outcome as validation that its integration drives product quality.

The European Commission fined Google 890 million euros after finding it breached the Digital Markets Act by self-preferencing its own services in Google Search results and by restricting businesses from steering consumers to alternative, often cheaper, purchase channels outside Google Play. The decision marked one of the largest DMA penalties issued to date and the Commission's second non-compliance finding against Google under the regulation. Google announced it would appeal, arguing the decisions mischaracterized its product design choices.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia rejected the Justice Department's request to force Google to divest its AdX ad exchange following her April 2025 finding that Google illegally monopolized key ad technology markets. The court instead accepted behavioral remedies requiring changes to how Google operates its advertising business, with a detailed order to follow. The ruling marked the third consecutive case in which a federal judge declined to impose structural separation on a major technology platform, following the Meta and Google search remedies decisions, prompting debate over whether behavioral remedies can meaningfully restore competition and whether the era of seeking Big Tech breakups had effectively ended. Critics of the outcome argued the remedies fell short of addressing the underlying market structure, while Google and its allies welcomed the rejection of what they called radical divestiture demands.

Judge Leonie Brinkema's 106-page remedies opinion in United States v. Google (ad tech) was unsealed, rejecting the Justice Department's demand to force a sale of Google's AdX ad exchange. Instead the court ordered behavioral remedies: Google must build API integrations wiring AdX and DFP into the rival open-source Prebid header-bidding framework on 'functionally equivalent' terms, share real-time win-and-loss bid data with publishers, and stop AdWords from bidding directly into DFP. A court-appointed technical monitor, with access to Google's employees, systems and source code, would oversee compliance for six years, down from the 15 years the DOJ sought, with the judgment taking effect globally within 60 days. Reactions split sharply: publishers and the News/Media Alliance welcomed enforceable auction changes, while public-interest groups including Public Knowledge and the Open Markets Institute warned the behavioral approach left Google's monopoly power intact, with critics calling the outcome an 'embarrassing capitulation.' Google framed the order as preserving its integrated products while acknowledging new obligations.