In the span of a few days, Google has faced two landmark rulings on opposite sides of the Atlantic. The first, on September 2, 2025, in the United States of America et al., v. Google LLC, (the “U.S. Case”), saw Judge Amit P. Mehta stop short of breaking up Google’s search business, instead directing measures aimed to loosen its grip on the market.
The second, on September 5, 2025, a decision of the European Commission (the “EU Case”), came with a $3.45 billion fine for distorting competition in advertising technology and a warning of stricter remedies if compliance falls short.
In the U.S. Case, Judge Mehta held that Google is a monopolist under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, but remedies should focus on curbing contractual restrictions rather than ordering structural divestitures.
In the EU Case, regulators found Google had engaged in unlawful self-preferencing across its ad-tech business, violating Section 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the Commission making clear that divestitures remain on the table if Google does not address its conflicts of interest. The case also touches on significant issues related to data privacy and protection, with Google facing heightened scrutiny under European data protection law as part of its broader regulatory challenges.
Ronin Legal takes a closer look at both cases.
The U.S. Case
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”), in 2020, commenced action against Google accusing it of abusing its dominance to disrupt competition.
Reports suggested that the lawsuit was critical due to two prominent reasons. First, it carried the potential to break up a $1 trillion company that has become deeply interwoven with the functioning of the internet. Second, it represented the federal government’s first major antitrust action against a technology giant since the Microsoft case in 1998.
Investigations were claimed to have revealed that the growth in Google’s search advertising revenue was driven by its platform protection activities and agreements.
It had entered into exclusive contracts and revenue sharing agreements (“RSAs”) with original equipment manufacturers (“OEM”) like Apple and Samsung. Therefore, structural relief was demanded, which is the selling of an asset in antitrust terms.
In his decision in 2024, Judge Mehta found that Google’s way of increasing its revenue from advertisements on the search engine results page was by making it the default search engine on the maximum number of devices. It was therefore held to be a monopolist acting unlawfully to maintain its market position.
In November 2024, the prosecution proposed a set of remedies to allow the entry of competition in the market through a 10-year reformation plan, proposing Google’s divestiture of its chrome browser, termination of RSAs, data sharing with rivals and stopping all investments in AI companies.
Google countered that its arrangements were legitimate business practices and that user preference, not coercion, explained its dominance. It also argued that forcing data-sharing with rivals would risk privacy and innovation.
Judge Mehta agreed that a divestiture would not be necessary, highlighting rivalry from emerging AI Chatbots such as ChatGPT, due to evidence of users switching to alternative search mechanisms, weakening Google’s dominance. However, he directed Google to share certain search data with rivals and prevented it from enforcing exclusivity in contracts.
The ruling makes it easier for device makers who set Google search as a default to load apps created by Google’s rivals, by barring Google from entering exclusive contracts.
The EU Case
In contrast, the European Commission (“EC”) focused on Google’s conduct in digital advertising. It found that Google had abused its dominance in publisher ad servers and programmatic ad-buying tools by favouring its own ad exchange (AdX) and discriminating against rivals.
This conduct, the Commission held, artificially inflated AdX’s prominence and pricing power, thereby foreclosing competition. The Commission imposed a $3.45 billion fine and ordered Google to end self-preferencing. It warned of stronger remedies, including structural remedies such as divestitures, if Google failed to resolve its conflicts of interest.
Google rejected the findings, maintaining that the ad-tech industry is highly competitive and that its services provide value to advertisers and publishers.
President Donald Trump criticized the EU’s action as “unfair” and “discriminatory,” warning he may launch a Section 301 proceeding to counter the penalties imposed on U.S. tech companies.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 empowers the U.S. to retaliate against foreign measures deemed unjustifiable or burdensome to American commerce.
These disputes reflect a broader pattern (see our series of articles on The Trump Administration vs European Tech Legislation in part I, II and III) in which the Trump administration views international digital regulations. As a countermeasure, it relies on tariff threats, trade suspensions and legislative measures.
The PubMatic Case
This case runs in parallel with the recent U.S. lawsuit lodged by PubMatic Inc., seeking billions in remedy over Google’s alleged monopoly in the ad-tech market. The judge has set another trial for this month, to determine whether Google should be directed to sell off its AdX and require it to make it interact with rivals.
Conclusion
The U.S. Case ruling is a huge relief for Google and its partners, since it allows Google to retain the ability to make annual lucrative payments to Apple of $20 billion, as estimated by Morgan Stanley, to remain the default search engine.
This is critical revenue-sharing that the DOJ sought to prohibit. Apple’s stock rose nearly 3% after the ruling, while Google’s shares jumped about 7.5%. It would have been disastrous for Google to lose its Chrome browser given how integrated the browser is into the Google ecosystem, and how crucial it is to Google’s AI strategy. Instead, it can continue integrating search, ads, and AI across its browser and services.
The EU Case, however, underlines that Google’s regulatory challenges are far from over. The $3.45 billion fine adds to a growing list of penalties imposed on U.S. tech giants by EC. For instance, Meta Platforms Inc. was fined $232 million in April 2025 for breaching the DMA with its “pay or consent” advertising model.
Apple was fined €500 million in April 2025 by the EU for violations of DMA related to its App Store conditions and Amazon was fined $887 million in 2021 by the Luxembourg data privacy regulator for violations of GDPR concerning advertising data use.
Unlike the U.S. decision, the EU’s ruling keeps open the possibility of forcing Google to divest parts of its business if compliance falters, as is the case with the PubMatic lawsuit, wherein the determination of Google’s activities as unfair or monopolistic could lead to structural remedies.
Together, the rulings highlight a transatlantic divergence in approaches, cautious behavioural remedies in the United States, and harsher structural threats in Europe.
Authors: Shantanu Mukherjee, Akshara Nair
