The U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust trial against Google has reached a critical juncture as presiding Judge Amit Mehta begins to assess a series of sweeping remedy proposals that could reshape the digital advertising and search landscape.

The case, brought forth in 2020 under the Trump administration and continued by the Biden Justice Department, accuses Google of monopolizing online search and search advertising markets through anti-competitive practices. The current phase of the trial, focusing on potential remedies, follows a months-long evidentiary process that concluded earlier this year.

Judge Confronts Complex Proposals

In recent hearings, Judge Mehta expressed concern over the breadth and complexity of the remedies suggested by the Justice Department and several state attorneys general. These include forcing Google to restructure parts of its advertising technology stack, potentially spinning off its ad business or separating Chrome from its search engine. Some proposals would also require Google to open its search results page to rival search engines — a move with far-reaching implications for the web ecosystem.

“Crafting a remedy that is both proportionate and workable is no small task,” Mehta said during a May 30 session. “The Court must avoid unintended consequences while ensuring compliance with antitrust law.”

DOJ and State Arguments

Government attorneys argue that only structural remedies — such as the divestiture of Google’s ad tech operations — can restore competition and prevent future abuses of market power. They claim that Google's integration of its various services has created a "self-reinforcing cycle of dominance" in both search and digital advertising.

“These are not just standalone services,” said DOJ attorney Kenneth Dintzer. “They are levers of market control that suppress competition and innovation.”

The DOJ also highlighted Google's default search agreements with browser and mobile device makers — including Apple and Samsung — which they argue foreclose rival search engines from gaining meaningful market share.

Google’s Defense

Google, which has denied wrongdoing throughout the trial, maintains that its success is based on superior products, not coercive agreements. In recent filings, the company warned that the proposed remedies would disrupt services that consumers rely on, stifle innovation, and set dangerous precedents for intervention in high-tech markets.

“Punishing a company for being better is not what antitrust law was meant to do,” said Kent Walker, Google’s President of Global Affairs. “Users choose Google — they are not forced into it.”

Google also emphasized that many of the business practices in question have been replicated by competitors such as Microsoft and Apple, arguing that the tech industry is dynamic and competitive despite Google's large market share.

Industry and Legal Implications

Legal experts and industry observers say the court's decision in the coming months could redefine the future of Big Tech regulation. If Judge Mehta opts for a structural remedy, it could be the most significant court-ordered breakup of a tech firm since the AT&T case of the early 1980s.

“There’s more at stake here than just Google,” said Fiona Scott Morton, an antitrust economist at Yale University. “This case is about whether dominant platforms can be held accountable under antitrust law in the digital age.”

Tech firms, advertisers, and consumer advocates are closely watching the proceedings, which could set a precedent for how regulators tackle alleged monopolies in fast-evolving technology markets.

What’s Next?

Judge Mehta is expected to issue a ruling on the proposed remedies later this year. Both sides have indicated they may appeal depending on the outcome, meaning the final resolution of the case could still be years away.

In the meantime, the trial marks a pivotal moment in the broader push to regulate the power of Big Tech, with similar antitrust actions ongoing or anticipated against Apple, Amazon, and Meta in various jurisdictions.