DOJ urges DC Circuit to beef up remedies in Google monopoly ruling

The government wants the appeals court to uphold and fortify a federal judge’s decision that the tech giant maintained an illegal monopoly and must share its lucrative search database with competitors.WASHINGTON (CN) — The Justice Department opened the latest chapter in the long-running fight to diminish Google’s monopoly power over internet search in a major filing at the D.C. Circuit late Tuesday night.In its 144-page brief, the Justice Department urged the D.C. Circuit to affirm U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s finding that the tech giant maintained an illegal monopoly over the search market, affirm the data-sharing remedies and vacate the denial of a ban on massive payments to distributors like Apple.Mehta largely sided with the Justice Department’s final proposed remedies on Dec. 5, 2025, approving the creation of a five-member Technical Committee to oversee and facilitate the sharing of Google’s lucrative search index and trove of user data, as well as certain search and search ad syndication services. The sharing is meant to help potential competitors match the quality in search Google had acquired via its illegal monopoly.In his initial remedy ruling on Sept. 2, 2025, the Barack Obama appointee rejected the government’s request to order the divestment of Google Chrome and Android, which would have opened the door for rivals to purchase the products or for them to operate independently.The Justice Department declined to challenge Mehta’s divestment decision, instead seeking the more “effective” remedy of a payment ban on massive agreements with distributors for default status that Mehta declined to impose. The government is requesting the D.C. Circuit vacate and send that denial back to Mehta, while affirming the remaining portions of his rulings.In his remedy decision, Mehta rejected such a ban based on potential harm to Google’s business partners and the possibility of downstream effects in other technology markets. The Justice Department slammed that reasoning, noting that under United States v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours such downstream effects are secondary concerns compared with restoring competition in the relevant market.“While the court might ‘revisit’ a payment ban later, correcting this error now is important,” the Justice Department argues. “Emerging [generative artificial intelligence] products pose ‘a potential threat to Google’s dominance,’ and a competitive window may close if Google can continue using its monopoly profits — fruits of its monopolizing conduct — to squelch the threat.”The appeal marks the latest landmark antitrust case brought to the D.C. Circuit in the new millennium, after the 2001 ruling in U.S. v. Microsoft — where a federal judge found the company held an illegal monopoly over personal operating systems — that upheld the company’s liability but rejected a major breakup.The case broke down following the transition between the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, with the Justice Department and Microsoft ultimately settling the antitrust case with lighter penalties. The precedent set in Microsoft has loomed large since the government’s case against Google was brought in late 2020.“Google argues the court ‘piled error upon error,’” the Justice Department wrote. “But, throughout the proceedings below, Google demanded showings that ‘the law does not require,’ ‘stretched Microsoftbeyond recognition,’ and made legal arguments that are ‘simply not true.’ Google now ignores key factual findings and repeated many erroneous arguments, asking this court to create rigid and anemic legal rules ungrounded in law or policy.”Google has argued its agreements with companies like Apple and Mozilla to make its search engine the default option on their browsers — for which Google shelled out over $26 billion annually — were not exclusive because the distributors were free to deal with rivals.The Justice Department slammed that argument, noting that Microsoft held any default agreement counts as exclusive.Further, Google has asserted throughout the lengthy litigation that it became the dominant search method — to the point its name became the colloquial term for searching online — by creating the “best product” at “the best price.”“Again, false,” the Justice Department said. “Even if Google had the best product and price, it did not have the right to hobble its rivals through exclusionary contractual conditions. ‘Conduct that prevents actual or potential rivals from competing or that impairs their opportunities to do so effectively’ is anticompetitive.’”Google’s long-term exclusive agreements effectively foreclosed “half of the search market for yearslong periods” and deprived rivals of the data and scale necessary to improve their search engine quality, then used the profits from its agreements to secure further long-term exclusionary deals, the Justice Department argues, thus creating a self-perpetuating “exclusionary cycle.”Google is set to file its reply brief on Sept. 29, with oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit yet to be scheduled for the 2026 term beginning in September.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads