Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Remedies phase of DOJ’s ‘Google search’ case begins today, (Apr 21, 2025)

By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.

Both the Justice Department and Google argued their cases in statements to the public before next phase begins.

As the remedies phase gets underway April 21, 2025, in the federal district court for the District of Washington, D.C. in the Internet search monopolization case brought by the Department of Justice and the attorneys general of 11 States, both the Department of Justice and Google issued public statements advocating for their desired outcomes. Previously, after a ten-week liability trial, the court found in August 2024 that the search giant used its exclusive distribution agreements with major browser developers, Android device makers, and wireless carriers to maintain its monopoly power in the markets for general search services and general search text advertising in violation of Sec. 2 of the Sherman Act. Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater called Google a “behemoth that crushed competition” comparable to historic monopolists Standard Oil and AT&T and implored the court to implement the Justice Department’s proposed remedies, and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche separately asked the court to follow the DOJ’s recommendations to “ensure Google can never again wield such dominance over Internet search.” Google, in a posting by its Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, said the “DOJ’s sweeping remedy proposals are both unnecessary and harmful.”

Background. On August 5, 2024, the federal district court in Washington, D.C., found Google liable under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for maintaining monopolies in general search services and general search text advertising, both in the United States. The government began fashioning proposed remedies and articulated a high-level remedy framework.

In March 2025, the Department of Justice and a bi-partisan group of states filed their revised proposed final judgment (RPFJ), replaces their initial proposed final judgment (IPFJ), which was filed before President Trump took office. The government maintained the RPFJ will “pry open the markets that Google unlawfully monopolized for more than a decade” while further thwarting Google circumvention of remedies. The government maintained its position that Google must divest its Chrome browser, a “critical search access point” and conduit for around 30 percent of all Google search engine (GSE) inquiries. However, the government dropped mandatory divestiture of Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) investments “in favor of a prior notification for future investments.”

The government also proposed modifying the ads syndication remedy “to focus on parity, transparency, and control” while removing the query volume limit and implementing marginal cost pricing only if the other proposed remedies are ineffective at restoring competition. Divestiture of the Android smartphone operating system remains in abeyance, essentially as originally proposed, in case adopted remedies fail.

The government described at length how the proposed RPFJ:

• substitutes notification for the previously proposed prohibition of AI investments;

• no longer requires immediate marginal-cost pricing for ad syndication;

• still requires Google to divest the Chrome browser, a “critical distribution point,” to shield against self-preferencing;

• continues to prohibit Google from making search-related payments to Apple and non-Apple search distribution partners;

• contains a contingent Android divestiture provision if proposed remedies are not effective in preventing Google from improperly leveraging its control of Android to its advantage or “if Google attempts to circumvent” remedies;

• requires Google to share data to offset the scale disadvantage it has created through unlawful conduct; and

• makes additional clarifying changes aimed at resolving ambiguities, preventing unintended consequences, and addressing the court’s concerns.

Google has also filed its own proposed final judgment in March 2025. Google’s proposed remedies do not include divestiture of the Chrome Browser. However, it would contain several prohibitions on Google entering into agreements with mobile device manufacturers and wireless carriers regarding the Google Search Application and Chrome, among other things.

Justice Department statements. AAG Slater emphasized the importance of the court’s remedies ruling:

The Google search case matters because nothing less than the future of the internet is at stake here. Are we going to give Americans choices and allow innovation and competition to thrive online? Or will we maintain the status quo that favors Big Tech monopolies? If Google’s conduct is not remedied, it will control much of the internet for the next decade and not just in internet search, but in new technologies like artificial intelligence.

The Trump administration has prioritized policies that support and advance artificial intelligence. But nothing will advance AI faster than an open and competitive marketplace free from gatekeepers and monopolies. For almost two centuries, American technological dynamism has been built on innovation, and innovation is built on competition. This is the American way.

In its defense, Google asks the Court to keep the status quo. It seeks to tell the judge that there is nothing to see here, even though the same judge has already found Google liable. Google wants to keep the fruits of its misconduct intact, as though the DOJ had never taken action and judge Mehta had never written his 277-page opinion.

Worse still, Google has called the DOJ’s proposed remedies “dangerous” and “irresponsible.” Not so. You know what is dangerous? The threat Google presents to our freedom of speech, to our freedom of thought, to free American digital markets. You know what is irresponsible? Leaving Google’s monopoly abuse unaddressed.

Deputy AG Blanche struck similar chords in his statement: “This antitrust case addresses that monopoly power. The Department has asked the court to impose remedies that will ensure Google can never again wield such dominance over internet search. The proposed remedies will ensure that the people enjoy vigorous competition and choice online. And we ask the Court to ensure Google cannot prevent its rivals from achieving scale.”

Google statement. Google’s Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland reiterated in her April 20, 2025, posting that Google will appeal the liability verdict. She said Google will demonstrate during the remedies phase how the DOJ’s proposed remedies are overbroad and harmful to consumers, the country’s economy, and its leadership position in tech. Addressing Google users, Mulholland said:

• DOJ’s proposal would make it harder for you to get to services you prefer. People use Google because they want to, not because they have to. DOJ's proposal would force browsers and phones to default to search services like Microsoft’s Bing, making it harder for you to access Google.

• DOJ’s proposal to prevent us from competing for the right to distribute Search would raise prices and slow innovation. Device makers and web browsers (like Mozilla’s Firefox) rely on the revenue they receive from search distribution. Removing that revenue would raise the cost of mobile phones and handicap the web browsers that you use every day.

• DOJ’s proposal would force Google to share your most sensitive and private search queries with companies you may never have heard of, jeopardizing your privacy and security. Your private information would be exposed, without your permission, to companies that lack Google’s world-class security protections, where it could be exploited by bad actors.

• DOJ’s proposal would also hamstring how we develop AI, and have a government-appointed committee regulate the design and development of our products. That would hold back American innovation at a critical juncture. We’re in a fiercely competitive global race with China for the next generation of technology leadership, and Google is at the forefront of American companies making scientific and technological breakthroughs.

• DOJ’s proposal to split off Chrome and Android—which we built at great cost over many years and make available for free—would break those platforms, hurt businesses built on them, and undermine security. Google keeps more people safe online than any other company in the world. Breaking off Chrome and Android from our technical, security, and operational infrastructure would not just introduce cybersecurity and even national security risks, but also increase the cost of your devices.

Instead, Mulholland offered that Google’s proposed remedies focusing on the contestability of search distribution contracts, would not harm consumers, the economy, or national security.

Companies: Google, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust AntitrustDivisionNews DistrictofColumbiaNews GCNNews