In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched two significant antitrust cases against Google. One targets how Google maintains its dominance in the search market. The other homes in on the digital ad tech ecosystem, where Google controls the tools, the data, and the auctions.
The two cases are separate, but together they represent the most serious regulatory threat Google has faced to date – and the outcomes could reshape how brands appear in search results and how media budgets are spent across the web.
To help illustrate where we currently stand with each of these trials, below is a clear timeline outlining both trials and their broader implications.
The DOJ filed its first antitrust lawsuit against Google in October 2020. At the heart of the case was a simple argument: Google was locking up the search market by paying to be the default everywhere.
Billions were spent annually securing default placement as the search engine of choice on Apple’s Safari browser, on Android handsets, and within Chrome – Google’s own browser, which commands over 60% of the global market.
These agreements created what the DOJ described as a “self-reinforcing cycle”: Google was the default, so it got more searches, more data, and more ad revenue, which it could then reinvest to stay the default.
As discovery progressed, more tech industry players were pulled into the story as Google’s current monopoly was unpicked. For example, Apple’s estimated $15–20 billion per year deal to keep Google as the default search engine on Safari was cited as a prime example of Google leveraging its market leadership to its advantage — both by limiting competitors’ exposure and by removing Apple’s incentive to develop its own search engine.
Meanwhile, device makers (such as Samsung) relying on Android were contractually obligated to include Google Search and Chrome prominently on their home screens, or risk losing access to the Google Play Store.
Even Mozilla, developer of Firefox, relied heavily on Google Search royalties to keep its open-source browser afloat.
When the trial began in late 2023, the courtroom heard evidence of how these deals shaped user behaviour. Studies showed that most users rarely switch from the default search engine, a behavioural bias Google has long understood and capitalised on.
Chrome, as both a browser and a key piece of Google’s ecosystem, featured heavily. As the default browser on millions of devices, Chrome ensured Google Search was only ever a keystroke away.
The DOJ successfully argued that Google’s contracts stifled competition by preventing rivals like Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Ecosia from gaining meaningful traction.
By locking down defaults across browsers, mobile devices, and voice assistants, Google had created a moat that few challengers could breach, regardless of product quality or innovation.
Google has not yet been found guilty; however, to help bring the trial to a swift conclusion, Google and the DOJ have begun discussing potential remedies to address Google’s dominant position in search.
Some of the remedies being discussed in court are:
Although a full break-up of Google isn’t expected at this stage, behavioural remedies could significantly reshape the search experience across devices, potentially giving rival search engines and platforms greater visibility and traction.
The remedies phase is expected to conclude by 9 May 2025, with closing arguments scheduled for 30 May 2025 (subject to change). A final decision on the remedies is anticipated towards the end of summer, with August 2025 the most likely window for a ruling.
Over the coming weeks, much of the SEO world will be watching closely as the courtroom debates unfold – and the future shape of search starts to take form.
While the search case was ongoing, the DOJ launched a second, separate case targeting Google’s control over the ad tech stack – from demand-side platforms (DV360), to ad exchanges (AdX), to publisher ad servers (Ad Manager).
The allegation? Google was playing both sides of the auction and rigging the game to its own advantage.
Google’s ad tech business powers a vast amount of the web’s programmatic infrastructure. By owning tools used by both advertisers and publishers, the DOJ claims Google had an unfair view of the market and could prioritise its own systems.
The lawsuit also highlighted Project Bernanke, an internal initiative revealed during a separate legal battle, which showed Google secretly using auction data to boost its own bids in ad auctions.
These revelations sparked concern among publishers and rival ad platforms, who argued that innovation and pricing transparency had been stifled.
Although this case is still in its pre-trial phase, a number of states and publishers have joined in support of the DOJ’s action. Some are calling for a structural break-up, potentially spinning off Ad Manager or forcing Google to divest AdX.
The remedy options here are far more aggressive than in the search case, including:
A formal trial is expected in early 2026, but the conversation has already triggered industry-wide discussions about the concentration of power in digital advertising.
Roll on the remedies phase, which we expect to cause additional problems following the conclusion of trial one in 2025.
These aren’t just legal dramas playing out in court – the outcomes could directly impact how advertisers reach customers and how marketers measure performance.
Here’s what to watch for:
With one ruling already handed down and another case heating up, regulators are sending a clear message: platform dominance is no longer above scrutiny.
For Google, these cases threaten to unwind some of its most valuable strategic advantages. For marketers, they mark the beginning of a new era – one where search, browsers, and ad tech may finally see a more level playing field.
There are some hungry competitors waiting in the wings to shake up search and take advantage of any areas Google may need to sell off, like OpenAI who would buy Chrome.
We’ll continue to follow both trials and provide updates as they evolve. If you’d like support adapting your strategy ahead of potential changes, get in touch with the team.