What to expect when Google faces the DOJ in the first major tech monopoly trial in decades
Google CEO, Sundar Pichai (: and Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general of antitrust for the US Department of Justice (R).
Getty Images
The biggest tech monopoly trial since the Department of Justice challenged Microsoft more than 20 years ago is set to begin Tuesday, kicking off a new chapter of anti-monopoly enforcement in the U.S.
Over the next few months, the DOJ and a collection of state attorneys general will make their case to a D.C. District Court judge for why Google has allegedly violated anti-monopoly law through exclusive agreements with mobile phone manufacturers and browser makers to make its search engine the default for consumers. Google, in turn, will seek to tell the judge why its behavior is not anti-competitive and instead provides a better experience for consumers.
While the trial marks the tech sector’s first major anti-monopoly proceeding in decades, Google is squarely in the middle of its antitrust battles. It’s already faced major fines over its competitive practices in Europe, and months after it wraps arguments in the search trial, it’s set to face a second challenge from the DOJ in the Eastern District of Virginia over its advertising technology business.
At stake in this trial is the chance for the DOJ to prove it can bring a successful anti-monopoly case in the modern digital age. The DOJ will likely strive to show that enforcement of the antitrust laws, not the absence of them, is what can unlock innovation, just as many believe its victory in the Microsoft case paved the way for a generation of companies including Google to thrive in a more open internet ecosystem.
For Google, it’s fighting to preserve a long-standing business practice that it sees as an important way to make its search products accessible to consumers, which it says creates the best experience for them.
Here’s what to expect as the trial begins on Tuesday.
What the trial is about
A key focus of the trial will be on two kinds of agreements Google has made with other companies. One type of agreement relates to the payments Google makes to browser makers like Apple to be the default search engine on the iPhone’s Safari browser and other devices. The other type is Google’s contracts with phone manufacturers that run Google’s Android operating system, which require them to preload certain Google apps.
The government argues that these arrangements locked up important distribution channels for search, creating overwhelming barriers to entry for rival search engines to compete with. Because of Google’s alleged dominant position in the market, the government contends that these moves violated antitrust law by illegally maintaining a monopoly.
The states will also argue an additional claim: that Google failed to make its popular search advertising tool, Search Ads 360 (SA360), sufficiently interoperable with Microsoft’s Bing. Instead, they allege in the complaint, Google “favors advertising on its own platform and steers advertiser spending towards itself by artificially denying advertisers the opportunity to evaluate the options that would serve those advertisers best.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who has led the coalition of states, told CNBC in an interview that their case and the DOJ’s “are really hand-in-glove.”
“The cases have very compatible theories, and the core message from both is that Google’s monopoly power has been abused, harming competition and hurting consumers,” Weiser said.
Colorado attorney general Phil Weiser speaks during a press conference announcing an indictment of the three Aurora police officers and two Aurora fire paramedics in the death of Elijah McClain on Wednesday, September 1, 2021.
Aaron Ontiveroz | MediaNews Group | The Denver Post via Getty Images
One argument that won’t make it to trial are the states’ allegations that Google suppressed vertical search providers, or search services that are focused on a specific topic, such as Yelp and Tripadvisor. The judge did not allow that claim to move forward. Still, antitrust experts interviewed for this article said that in some ways, the omission could actually help the government deliver a more straightforward and streamlined argument by dedicating more time to other theories.
The government is likely to argue that Google’s behavior has stifled innovation that would otherwise benefit consumers. That could be because the high barriers to entry in the market could discourage rivals and because the lack of competition could lessen Google’s own incentive to innovate.
But Google has maintained that its actions have legitimate business purposes and are made to enhance consumer experience with its products.
Points of conflict
One likely area of disagreement will be how the government defines the market that Google has allegedly monopolized. While Google did not contest the definition of the general search market in its motion to dismiss the case, it could still do so in its trial arguments.
While the government defines the general search market as including direct Google rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo, Google has alluded to other tools that consumers commonly use to search online. For example, in a blog post previewing its defense, Google’s president of global affairs, Kent Walker, pointed to an Insider Intelligence report that found 60% of U.S. product searches start on Amazon. Walker wrote that the abundance of places where consumers can use online search shows that Google hasn’t foreclosed competition.
Still, much of the trial is likely to focus on whether Google’s alleged exclusionary contracts can be considered bad acts used to further its monopoly. That means the behavior doesn’t have a legitimate business purpose “besides aggrandizing or keeping your market power,” according to Rebecca Haw Allensworth, an antitrust professor at Vanderbilt Law School.
“I think the judge is probably inclined to find that Google has substantial monopoly power,” said Bill Kovacic, who teaches antitrust at George Washington University Law School and is a former FTC chairman. “So the attention is going to be focused on the behavior. And one of Google’s principal themes will be that everything we do gives the user a better experience. And that the net effect of each practice is to make the user better off than they would be otherwise.”
One important part of the case will be examining the payments Google makes to Apple to secure its place as the iPhone’s default search engine in its Safari browser. On the one hand, the government may argue that the billions of dollars Google is estimated to spend on that position shows just how valuable it sees that placement and the level of sacrifice Google is willing to take on to be the default, according to Allensworth.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai (L) and Apple CEO Tim Cook (R) listen as U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a roundtable with American and Indian business leaders in the East Room of the White House on June 23, 2023 in Washington, DC.
Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images
On the other hand, Allensworth added, Google might argue that prominent placement in Apple’s browser means more eyeballs for its own advertisers, and ultimately more revenue, which could be a legitimate business justification.
Allensworth said she expects the government to bring in experts that attempt to argue that the payments for default placement “economically don’t make sense,” beyond an effort to cut out rivals.
One additional element that will be discussed is Google’s alleged destruction of evidence once it reasonably expected litigation. The government alleged that Google failed to preserve chat messages between employees that should have been under legal hold and prevented from auto-deleting.
“That type of destruction and failure to preserve evidence is really troubling,” Weiser said. “And the judge has said that’s something he’s willing to consider in this case. And we just want to underscore that as the judge looks at this case, we didn’t have full access to the evidence because of the conduct of Google.”
Google has said that company officials “strongly refute the DOJ’s claims.”
“Our teams have conscientiously worked for years to respond to inquiries and litigation,” a spokesperson said in a statement earlier this year. “In fact, we have produced over 4 million documents in this case alone, and millions more to regulators around the world.”
What to expect on Tuesday
The first day of the trial will set up the arguments for what could take as long as 10 weeks. Each party will give its opening statements before the DOJ begins presenting its case-in-chief. That means the government will call on both expert and industry witnesses to help make its case.
After the DOJ concludes its main presentation, the states will have their turn, followed by Google. Afterward, the plaintiffs will likely get a chance to rebut Google’s arguments.
Antitrust trials are a long process, and even if Google is found liable at this stage, there could be another separate proceeding to determine the best solution for resolving the concerns.
In the next few weeks, one of the most interesting things to watch for will be who is called to testify. In addition to experts like economists, expect to see Google executives called to the stand, potentially including CEO Sundar Pichai. The court will likely also hear testimony from third parties referenced in the case, like Mozilla and Apple or rivals like Microsoft or DuckDuckGo.
What’s at stake
The case’s outcome will be a significant statement on the status of antitrust law in the U.S. and how it should be applied to dominant tech firms. While the court will consider specific remedies only if Google is found liable for the allegations at this stage, a favorable ruling for the government could ultimately result in restrictions on Google’s business practices or even the break up of parts of its business.
Google would view such a ruling as ultimately harmful for consumers.
“A ruling that says your products are too good or too successful, you can no longer pay to promote them,” would be out of step with American law and “not good for the ecosystem and not good for consumers,” according to Google’s Walker.
But supporters of the government’s case believe consumers will be subject to a deteriorating search experience if the court rejects its arguments.
“If Google is allowed to maintain its monopoly through illegal default search agreements while hampering competition, what that means is Google maintains its monopoly with a worse product,” said Lee Hepner, legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, which advocates for more enforcement of antitrust laws in markets including tech.
The outcome will also be an important signal of the ability of the government to bring successful tech antitrust cases in the future, and whether current law can sufficiently account for the nuances of digital markets.
For the government, winning this trial would be a significant victory, strengthening the DOJ’s currently mixed record in court under antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter and signaling it can tell a compelling story about technical digital markets. A loss would be a blow to those efforts, but would likely be used as fodder in Congress to push for new antitrust laws.
For the government, winning the trial may also be seen as a chance to open the digital ecosystem for the next generation of tech businesses. Many credit the Microsoft case with that effect, and this trial comes as artificial intelligence ushers in a new wave of technology and likely many new companies.
But Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, of which Google is a member, sees the rise of AI as complicating the government’s arguments. Google is one of the leaders in generative AI with its chatbot Bard, though OpenAI released ChatGPT first.
“That argument could not come at a more awkward time for the government, given the amazing innovations that we’ve seen come to market by companies that are not Google,” Schruers said. “We’re in the midst of an overwhelming sea change in technology, and the government has to say, ‘These contracts are holding technological innovation back.'”
WATCH: Google faces fast and furious pace of lawsuits as antitrust scrutiny intensifies
Formula One F1 – United States Grand Prix – Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas, U.S. – October 23, 2022 Tim Cook waves the chequered flag to the race winner Red Bull’s Max Verstappen
Mike Segar | Reuters
Apple had two major launches last month. They couldn’t have been more different.
First, Apple revealed some of the artificial intelligence advancements it had been working on in the past year when it released developer versions of its operating systems to muted applause at its annual developer’s conference, WWDC. Then, at the end of the month, Apple hit the red carpet as its first true blockbuster movie, “F1,” debuted to over $155 million — and glowing reviews — in its first weekend.
While “F1” was a victory lap for Apple, highlighting the strength of its long-term outlook, the growth of its services business and its ability to tap into culture, Wall Street’s reaction to the company’s AI announcements at WWDC suggest there’s some trouble underneath the hood.
“F1” showed Apple at its best — in particular, its ability to invest in new, long-term projects. When Apple TV+ launched in 2019, it had only a handful of original shows and one movie, a film festival darling called “Hala” that didn’t even share its box office revenue.
Despite Apple TV+ being written off as a costly side-project, Apple stuck with its plan over the years, expanding its staff and operation in Culver City, California. That allowed the company to build up Hollywood connections, especially for TV shows, and build an entertainment track record. Now, an Apple Original can lead the box office on a summer weekend, the prime season for blockbuster films.
The success of “F1” also highlights Apple’s significant marketing machine and ability to get big-name talent to appear with its leadership. Apple pulled out all the stops to market the movie, including using its Wallet app to send a push notification with a discount for tickets to the film. To promote “F1,” Cook appeared with movie star Brad Pitt at an Apple store in New York and posted a video with actual F1 racer Lewis Hamilton, who was one of the film’s producers.
(L-R) Brad Pitt, Lewis Hamilton, Tim Cook, and Damson Idris attend the World Premiere of “F1: The Movie” in Times Square on June 16, 2025 in New York City.
Jamie Mccarthy | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images
Although Apple services chief Eddy Cue said in a recent interview that Apple needs the its film business to be profitable to “continue to do great things,” “F1” isn’t just about the bottom line for the company.
Apple’s Hollywood productions are perhaps the most prominent face of the company’s services business, a profit engine that has been an investor favorite since the iPhone maker started highlighting the division in 2016.
Films will only ever be a small fraction of the services unit, which also includes payments, iCloud subscriptions, magazine bundles, Apple Music, game bundles, warranties, fees related to digital payments and ad sales. Plus, even the biggest box office smashes would be small on Apple’s scale — the company does over $1 billion in sales on average every day.
But movies are the only services component that can get celebrities like Pitt or George Clooney to appear next to an Apple logo — and the success of “F1” means that Apple could do more big popcorn films in the future.
“Nothing breeds success or inspires future investment like a current success,” said Comscore senior media analyst Paul Dergarabedian.
But if “F1” is a sign that Apple’s services business is in full throttle, the company’s AI struggles are a “check engine” light that won’t turn off.
Replacing Siri’s engine
At WWDC last month, Wall Street was eager to hear about the company’s plans for Apple Intelligence, its suite of AI features that it first revealed in 2024. Apple Intelligence, which is a key tenet of the company’s hardware products, had a rollout marred by delays and underwhelming features.
Apple spent most of WWDC going over smaller machine learning features, but did not reveal what investors and consumers increasingly want: A sophisticated Siri that can converse fluidly and get stuff done, like making a restaurant reservation. In the age of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude and Google’s Gemini, the expectation of AI assistants among consumers is growing beyond “Siri, how’s the weather?”
The company had previewed a significantly improved Siri in the summer of 2024, but earlier this year, those features were delayed to sometime in 2026. At WWDC, Apple didn’t offer any updates about the improved Siri beyond that the company was “continuing its work to deliver” the features in the “coming year.” Some observers reduced their expectations for Apple’s AI after the conference.
“Current expectations for Apple Intelligence to kickstart a super upgrade cycle are too high, in our view,” wrote Jefferies analysts this week.
Siri should be an example of how Apple’s ability to improve products and projects over the long-term makes it tough to compete with.
It beat nearly every other voice assistant to market when it first debuted on iPhones in 2011. Fourteen years later, Siri remains essentially the same one-off, rigid, question-and-answer system that struggles with open-ended questions and dates, even after the invention in recent years of sophisticated voice bots based on generative AI technology that can hold a conversation.
Apple’s strongest rivals, including Android parent Google, have done way more to integrate sophisticated AI assistants into their devices than Apple has. And Google doesn’t have the same reflex against collecting data and cloud processing as privacy-obsessed Apple.
Some analysts have said they believe Apple has a few years before the company’s lack of competitive AI features will start to show up in device sales, given the company’s large installed base and high customer loyalty. But Apple can’t get lapped before it re-enters the race, and its former design guru Jony Ive is now working on new hardware with OpenAI, ramping up the pressure in Cupertino.
“The three-year problem, which is within an investment time frame, is that Android is racing ahead,” Needham senior internet analyst Laura Martin said on CNBC this week.
Apple’s services success with projects like “F1” is an example of what the company can do when it sets clear goals in public and then executes them over extended time-frames.
Its AI strategy could use a similar long-term plan, as customers and investors wonder when Apple will fully embrace the technology that has captivated Silicon Valley.
Wall Street’s anxiety over Apple’s AI struggles was evident this week after Bloomberg reported that Apple was considering replacing Siri’s engine with Anthropic or OpenAI’s technology, as opposed to its own foundation models.
The move, if it were to happen, would contradict one of Apple’s most important strategies in the Cook era: Apple wants to own its core technologies, like the touchscreen, processor, modem and maps software, not buy them from suppliers.
Using external technology would be an admission that Apple Foundation Models aren’t good enough yet for what the company wants to do with Siri.
“They’ve fallen farther and farther behind, and they need to supercharge their generative AI efforts” Martin said. “They can’t do that internally.”
Apple might even pay billions for the use of Anthropic’s AI software, according to the Bloomberg report. If Apple were to pay for AI, it would be a reversal from current services deals, like the search deal with Alphabet where the Cupertino company gets paid $20 billion per year to push iPhone traffic to Google Search.
The company didn’t confirm the report and declined comment, but Wall Street welcomed the report and Apple shares rose.
In the world of AI in Silicon Valley, signing bonuses for the kinds of engineers that can develop new models can range up to $100 million, according to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
“I can’t see Apple doing that,” Martin said.
Earlier this week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent a memo bragging about hiring 11 AI experts from companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google’s DeepMind. That came after Zuckerberg hired Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang to lead a new AI division as part of a $14.3 billion deal.
Meta’s not the only company to spend hundreds of millions on AI celebrities to get them in the building. Google spent big to hire away the founders of Character.AI, Microsoft got its AI leader by striking a deal with Inflection and Amazon hired the executive team of Adept to bulk up its AI roster.
Apple, on the other hand, hasn’t announced any big AI hires in recent years. While Cook rubs shoulders with Pitt, the actual race may be passing Apple by.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks alongside U.S. President Donald Trump to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who bombarded President Donald Trump‘s signature spending bill for weeks, on Friday made his first comments since the legislation passed.
Musk backed a post on X by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who said the bill’s budget “explodes the deficit” and continues a pattern of “short-term politicking over long-term sustainability.”
The House of Representatives narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Thursday, sending it to Trump to sign into law.
Paul and Musk have been vocal opponents of Trump’s tax and spending bill, and repeatedly called out the potential for the spending package to increase the national debt.
On Monday, Musk called it the “DEBT SLAVERY bill.”
The independent Congressional Budget Office has said the bill could add $3.4 trillion to the $36.2 trillion of U.S. debt over the next decade. The White House has labeled the agency as “partisan” and continuously refuted the CBO’s estimates.
The bill includes trillions of dollars in tax cuts, increased spending for immigration enforcement and large cuts to funding for Medicaid and other programs.
It also cuts tax credits and support for solar and wind energy and electric vehicles, a particularly sore spot for Musk, who has several companies that benefit from the programs.
“I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Trump wrote in a social media post in early June as the pair traded insults and threats.
Shares of Tesla plummeted as the feud intensified, with the company losing $152 billion in market cap on June 5 and putting the company below $1 trillion in value. The stock has largely rebounded since, but is still below where it was trading before the ruckus with Trump.
Tesla one-month stock chart.
— CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger and Erin Doherty contributed to this article.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike