Two antitrust rulings challenge Google’s dominance in search and ad tech. Here’s what marketers need to know about the legal and strategic impact. 

On April 22, 2025, a federal judge began hearings to decide on remedial action after ruling last year that Google held an illegal monopoly over search engines. This isn’t the first time Google has faced legal scrutiny for allegedly monopolistic practices. In fact, it isn’t even the only antitrust case hanging over Google right now.  

The big tech juggernaut has been embattled with the Justice Department over two separate antitrust cases: one concerning its search engine, and another about its advertising technology. The DOJ has declared that Google’s tech dominance constitutes an illegal monopoly and that the company must face consequences. Both cases have the potential to completely reshape the digital advertising landscape. 

Search Engine Monopoly Case (Filed 2020) 

In this case, the DOJ alleges that Google’s dominance in the search engine market stifled competition and harmed both consumers and competitors. Later, in August 2024, a federal judge ruled that Google’s practices constituted an illegal monopoly. Next, on April 22, 2025, that same judge began hearings to determine remedial action.

The DOJ has proposed, among other penalties, that Google be forced to sell Chrome, its web browser, through which Google gets much of its search engine traffic. The proposal would also prevent Google from paying other companies to have Google Search as the default search engine on those devices. Notably, Google has paid Apple over $20 billion to ensure that Google Search is the default on Apple devices. 

Google has strongly opposed these proposals, including in a public statement posted to their blog here. 

Chrome, AI, and Google’s Search Engine

While artificial intelligence may seem tangential, it has become a key point of debate. 

The DOJ is concerned that Google could use its Gemini AI, in tandem with its search engine and browser, Chrome, to dominate the AI market. On the other hand, Google argues its share of the AI market is smaller than competitors like OpenAI and Meta, leaving ample room for competition. 

However, neither of those companies have access to a search engine like Google’s, a strategic advantage that isn’t lost on the litigators. And Google is quite protective of these capabilities, having turned down bids from companies like OpenAI and Perplexity who have sought licenses to integrate Google Search into their platforms. 

As part of its attempt to break up Google, DOJ has recommended the sale of Chrome. Among other proposed remedies, access to Google’s search infrastructure may also be in flux. If Google were forced to license its search capabilities, it could fundamentally alter AI tools such as ChatGPT, which would then have access to much more powerful search engines. 

Advertising Technology Monopoly Case (Filed 2023) 

A separate case filed by the DOJ in 2023 alleges that Google held an illegal monopoly over ad tech, that it engaged in conduct that crushed competition, and covered up evidence of its anticompetitive behavior. On April 17, 2025, a federal judge ruled that Google had violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. In a press release, the Assistant Attorney General declared: 

“Today’s opinion confirms Google’s controlling hand over online advertising and, increasingly, the internet itself.” 

As this case continues to unfold, the proposed remedies could have profound impacts on companies who advertise through Google’s ad tech or publishing products. The DOJ has proposed that Google break up and sell its Ad Exchange and publishing platform, which Google has used in tandem. Given Google’s dominance in advertising technology, the implications for marketers could be far-reaching. 

A Broader Crackdown on Big Tech 

Google isn’t alone in its litigation troubles. Other tech giants, including Meta, Apple, and Amazon, are also facing antitrust lawsuits that threaten to topple their vast digital empires. Most of these cases have been brewing for years now and have broad appeal across political lines, reflecting a wider legislative effort to rein in the unchecked power of dominant big tech companies.