Google antitrust: here’s what the states and DOJ say they want

What’s going to happen in the Google antitrust case? This summer, an American court found Google liable of operating an illegal monopoly in search and search advertising. Alongside the federal Department of Justice, 51 states and territories have joined the legal action that threatens Google’s existence as we know it, making it likely the biggest antitrust case in the United States since the 2001 conviction of Microsoft.

Like the Microsoft case, this current Google situation will take years to finalize.

But it’s worth looking a bit deeper into what the states and DOJ are looking for from the presiding judge as remedies.

What the states want from Google

Ultimately, they want 5 things in the Google antitrust case:

1. Search distribution and revenue sharing
   The states suggest limits or bans on Google’s contracts that establish its default status in browsers and devices, aiming to prevent Google from monopolizing new distribution channels.
2. Accumulation and use of data
   They also recommend that the judge finds that Google should share some of its data (such as search indexes and models) to level the playing field for competitors, while respecting user privacy.
3. Generation and display of search results
   To counter Google’s control over content sources, they propose giving websites an option to exclude their content from Google’s AI training and products, thus reducing Google’s dominance in search-based AI.
4. Advertising scale and monetization
   The DOJ is calling for measures to reduce Google’s dominance in search advertising by allowing competitors more access to ad data and by giving advertisers more transparency and control over ad placement.
5. Administrative and compliance measures
   To ensure compliance of whatever the judge decides, they propose the appointment of a technical committee, regular reporting, and employee training on compliance, plus instantiating several anti-circumvention and anti-retaliation provisions.

All in all, what the DOJ and the 38 states want from the judge is significant. It’s about the past, and it’s also about the future. It’s punitive and preventative.

“Plaintiffs have a duty to seek — and the Court has the authority to impose — an order that not only addresses the harms that already exist as a result of Google’s illegal conduct, but also prevents and restrains recurrence of the same offense of illegal monopoly maintenance going forward,” their remedy list says.

Google antitrust: what this looks like in the real world

Imagine Google-free devices … it’s a little challenging, isn’t it? It’s almost impossible, too.

Most mobile devices come preloaded with Google in 1 way or another. On Android, that’s often Google Play and core Google apps such as YouTube and Gmail, but it’s also visible on iOS, where Google has purchased the right to be the default search engine.

“The starting point for addressing Google’s unlawful conduct is undoing its effects on search distribution,” the plaintiffs are telling the court.

(Apple can’t be happy about this: it makes billions of dollars annually for no work by selling that default search position to Google.)

Another thing this hits is Chrome, which is by far the most-used browser in the world — it’s not even close — and has, of course, Google as the default search engine.

 

 

The DOJ and states want Google to share search index data

Search engines, like LLMs, get better when they have more data. So the DOJ and states want Google to be forced to share a huge amount of data with competitors.

That data includes:

• Indexes, data, feeds, and models used for Google search
• Google search results, features, and ads, including the underlying ranking signals, especially on mobile

This would be nothing short of mind-blowing if it actually did happen: Google would be forced by law to give away not just the underlying raw material that it grinds to feed its search engine, and not just the algorithms that power it, but also the very product Google search generates itself: search results.

I can’t imagine this actually happening, honestly. And I marvel that the states and the DOJ are actually asking for it.

But there’s no telling what a judge might agree with.

Addressing Google’s scale and massive product portfolio

For the DOJ and states, the Google antitrust case is also about scale. They want to address Google’s sheer scale and massive product portfolio, which enable Google to have visibility on the ad ecosystem from multiple vantage points and therefore, potentially, to have an edge on competitors.

They’re pretty hazy on what they’d like to see as remedies for this, however.

One thing they do suggest would be music to the ears of performance marketers: more campaign data.

“Plaintiffs are considering remedies that would allow Google search advertisers to receive transparent and detailed information (e.g., Search Query Reports and other information related to its search text ads auction and ad monetization) consistent with user privacy and to opt out of Google search features (e.g., keyword-expansion, broad match).”

Where this will all go

Google has appealed the ruling, and sees the proposals as radical (they are) and excessive (maybe). A more detailed proposal of remedies is expected some time this month, but all of this could be impacted by the federal election as well.

All in all, a final decision on the remedies should come sometime in spring of 2025. In other words, the wheels of justice — or injustice, depending on your view of the legal action against Google — turn slowly.

As in the Microsoft antitrust case, it’ll take years of appeals and judgements to settle everything, by which time most of the issues might be outdated already.

States that have joined the Google antitrust case

Here’s the list of 51 U.S. states and territories involved in the antitrust case against Google:

1. Alaska

2. Arizona

3. Arkansas

4. California

5. Colorado

6. Connecticut

7. Delaware

8. District of Columbia

9. Florida

10. Georgia

11. Hawaii

12. Idaho

13. Illinois

14. Indiana

15. Iowa

16. Kansas

17. Kentucky

18. Louisiana

19. Maine

20. Maryland

21. Massachusetts

22. Michigan

23. Minnesota

24. Mississippi

25. Missouri

26. Montana

27. Nebraska

28. Nevada

29. New Hampshire

30. New Jersey

31. New Mexico

32. New York

33. North Carolina

34. North Dakota

35. Ohio

36. Oklahoma

37. Oregon

38. Pennsylvania

39. Puerto Rico

40. Rhode Island

41. South Carolina

42. South Dakota

43. Tennessee

44. Texas

45. Utah

46. Vermont

47. Virginia

48. Washington

49. West Virginia

50. Wisconsin

51. Wyoming