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
Jeff Williams, chief operating officer of Apple Inc., during the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) at Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California, US, on Monday, June 9, 2025.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Apple said on Tuesday that Chief Operating Officer Jeff Williams, a 27-year company veteran, will be retiring later this year.
Current operations leader Sabih Khan will take over much of the COO role later this month, Apple said in a press release. For his remaining time with the comapny, Williams will continue to head up Apple’s design team, Apple Watch, and health initiatives, reporting to CEO Tim Cook.
Williams becomes the latest longtime Apple executive to step down as key employees, who were active in the company’s hyper-growth years, reach retirement age. Williams, 62, previously headed Apple’s formidable operations division, which is in charge of manufacturing millions of complicated devices like iPhones, while keeping costs down.
He also led important teams inside Apple, including the company’s fabled industrial design team, after longtime leader Jony Ive retired in 2019. When Williams retires, Apple’s design team will report to CEO Tim Cook, Apple said.
“He’s helped to create one of the most respected global supply chains in the world; launched Apple Watch and overseen its development; architected Apple’s health strategy; and led our world class team of designers with great wisdom, heart, and dedication,” Cook said in the statement.
Williams said he plans to spend more time with friends and family.
“June marked my 27th anniversary with Apple, and my 40th in the industry,” Williams said in the release.
Williams is leaving Apple at a time when its famous supply chain is under significant pressure, as the U.S. imposes tariffs on many of the countries where Apple sources its devices, and White House officials publicly pressure Apple to move more production to the U.S.
Khan was added to Apple’s executive team in 2019, taking an executive vice president title. Apple said on Tuesday that he will lead supply chain, product quality, planning, procurement, and fulfillment at Apple.
The operations leader joined Apple’s procurement group in 1995, and before that worked as an engineer and technical leader at GE Plastics. He has a bachelor’s degree from Tufts University and a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in upstate New York.
Khan has worked closely with Cook. Once, during a meeting when Cook said that a manufacturing problem was “really bad,” Khan stood up and drove to the airport, and immediately booked a flight to China to fix it, according to an anecdote published in Fortune.
WATCH: Jefferies upgrades Apple
Elon Musk, chief executive officer of SpaceX and Tesla, attends the Viva Technology conference at the Porte de Versailles exhibition center in Paris, June 16, 2023.
Gonzalo Fuentes | Reuters
Tesla CEO Elon Musk told Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives to “Shut up” on Tuesday after the analyst offered three recommendations to the electric vehicle company’s board in a post on X.
Ives has been one of the most bullish Tesla observers on Wall Street. With a $500 price target on the stock, he has the highest projection of any analyst tracked by FactSet.
But on Tuesday, Ives took to X with critical remarks about Musk’s political activity after the world’s richest person said over the weekend that he was creating a new political party called the America Party to challenge Republican candidates who voted for the spending bill that was backed by President Donald Trump.
Ives’ post followed a nearly 7% slide in Tesla’s stock Monday, which wiped out $68 billion in market cap. Ives called for Tesla’s board to create a new pay package for Musk that would get him 25% voting control and clear a path to merge with xAI, establish “guardrails” for how much time Musk has to spend at Tesla, and provide “oversight on political endeavors.”
Ives published a lengthier note with other analysts from his firm headlined, “The Tesla board MUST Act and Create Ground Rules For Musk; Soap Opera Must End.” The analysts said that Musk’s launching of a new political party created a “tipping point in the Tesla story,” necessitating action by the company’s board to rein in the CEO.
Still, Wedbush maintained its price target and its buy recommendation on the stock.
“Shut up, Dan,” Musk wrote in response on X, even though the first suggestion would hand the CEO the voting control he has long sought at Tesla.
In an email to CNBC, Ives wrote, “Elon has his opinion and I get it, but we stand by what the right course of action is for the Board.”
Musk’s historic 2018 CEO pay package, which had been worth around $56 billion and has since gone up in value, was voided last year by the Delaware Court of Chancery. Judge Kathaleen McCormick ruled that Tesla’s board members had lacked independence from Musk and failed to properly negotiate at arm’s length with the CEO.
Tesla has appealed that case to the Delaware state Supreme Court and is trying to determine what Musk’s next pay package should entail.
Ives isn’t the only Tesla bull to criticize Musk’s continued political activism.
Analysts at William Blair downgraded the stock to the equivalent of a hold from a buy on Monday, because of Musk’s political plans and rhetoric as well as the negative impacts that the spending bill passed by Congress could have on Tesla’s margins and EV sales.
“We expect that investors are growing tired of the distraction at a point when the business needs Musk’s attention the most and only see downside from his dip back into politics,” the analysts wrote. “We would prefer this effort to be channeled towards the robotaxi rollout at this critical juncture.”
Trump supporter James Fishback, CEO of hedge fund Azoria Partners, said Saturday that his firm postponed the listing of an exchange-traded fund, the Azoria Tesla Convexity ETF, that would invest in the EV company’s shares and options. He began his post on X saying, “Elon has gone too far.”
“I encourage the Board to meet immediately and ask Elon to clarify his political ambitions and evaluate whether they are compatible with his full-time obligations to Tesla as CEO,” Fishback wrote.
Musk said Saturday that he has formed the America Party, which he claimed will give Americans “back your freedom.” He hasn’t shared formal details, including where the party may be registered, how much funding he will provide for it and which candidates he will back.
Tesla’s stock is now down about 25% this year, badly underperforming U.S. indexes and by far the worst performance among tech’s megacaps.
Musk spent much of the first half of the year working with the Trump administration and leading an effort to massively downsize the federal government. His official work with the administration wrapped up at the end of May, and his exit preceded a public spat between Musk and Trump over the spending bill and other matters.
Musk, Tesla’s board chair Robyn Denholm and investor relations representative Travis Axelrod didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
WATCH: Musk-backed party would be doomed by his unfavorability
Waymo announced it is now offering teen accounts for its self-driving car service Waymo One, beginning in Phoenix, Arizona.
Courtesy of Waymo
Waymo announced Tuesday that it is offering accounts for teens ages 14 to 17, starting in Phoenix.
The Alphabet-owned company said that, beginning Tuesday, parents in Phoenix can use their Waymo accounts “to invite their teen into the program, pairing them together.” Once their account is activated, teens can hail fully autonomous rides.
Previously, users were required to be at least 18 years old to sign up for a Waymo account, but the age range expansion comes as the company seeks to increase ridership amid a broader expansion of its ride-hailing service across U.S. cities. Alphabet has also been under pressure to monetize AI products amid increased competition and economic headwinds.
Waymo said it will offer “specially-trained Rider Support agents” during rides hailed by teens and loop in parents if needed. Teens can also share their trip status with their parents for real-time updates on their progress, and parents receive all ride receipts.
Teen accounts are initially only being offered to riders in the metro Phoenix area. Teen accounts will expand to more markets outside California where the Waymo app is available in the future, a spokesperson said.
Waymo’s expansion to teens follows a similar move by Uber, which launched teen accounts in 2023. Waymo, which has partnerships with Uber in multiple markets, said it “may consider enabling access for teens through our network partners in the future.”
Already, Waymo provides more than 250,000 paid trips each week across Phoenix, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Austin, Texas, and the company is preparing to bring autonomous rides to Miami and Washington, D.C., in 2026.
In June, Waymo announced that it plans to manually drive vehicles in New York, marking the first step toward potentially cracking the largest U.S. city. Waymo said it applied for a permit with the New York City Department of Transportation to operate autonomously with a trained specialist behind the wheel in Manhattan.
WATCH: We went to Texas for Tesla’s robotaxi launch. Here’s what we saw
-
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