Google’s Antitrust Struggles Under Biden Administration

Under the Biden administration, Google found itself entangled in two significant antitrust cases. One focused on its dominance in search engines, while the other scrutinized its digital advertising business. At one point, Google faced the potential sale of some of its biggest assets, including Chrome and Google Ads. Yet, a recent decision means Google can retain these products after all.

To grasp the full context here, we need to trace back to October 2020 when the first lawsuit was launched by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint accused Google of violating the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolistic behaviors. Essentially, the intent was to challenge Google’s alleged maintenance of monopolies in general search services and advertising markets in the U.S.

This case was set for trial in late 2023, with Judge Amit Mehta, appointed by Obama, presiding over it. However, just before this, a second antitrust case emerged to further challenge Google.

In early 2023, another lawsuit was filed, targeting Google’s online advertising practices. The accusations leveled against the tech giant included:

• Monopolistic control over the ad server market, used by website publishers to manage their ads.
• Monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the ad exchange market, a digital auction platform for selling ad space.
• Monopolizing the advertiser ad network market, aggregating ad space from publishers to sell to advertisers.
• Engaging in unlawful practices that tied product adoption together, essentially forcing users to use multiple products to make their platforms effective.
• Causation of monetary damages to the United States.

The charges from both cases led to lengthy trials, each dragging on with significant implications for Google. At various points, the company faced the possibility of divesting not just Google Ads, but also popular products like the Chrome browser and Android operating system. However, in a surprising turn, Google managed to navigate through this turmoil.

In September 2025, Judge Mehta concluded that Google would not have to divest Chrome or Android, though the company was found guilty of harming publishers, the competitive landscape, and consumers. As a remedy, Google was required to:

• Cease bundled contracts that forced manufacturers to include Google applications on devices for support.
• Share web search index data with competitors for a fee, while safeguarding trade secrets.
• Permit rivals to rent Google services like search results and maps on their platforms with gradual scaling back over five years.
• Offer a five-year license to competitors for using its search ad network.
• Report to a five-member oversight group to ensure compliance for six years.

While this development seemed favorable for Google, the second case was still progressing. Following Judge Leonie Brinkema’s ruling, Google faced another potential crisis with new remedies that could include:

• Liquidating its Google Ads business and its associated platforms.
• Ending tying practices for at least a decade.
• Allocating 50% of profits from Google Ads into a locked account until the sale was finalized.
• Abstaining from using data from its various services to hinder competition for a minimum of ten years.
• Creating two independent advisory groups to ensure proper execution of remedies.

Looking ahead to September 2026, a crucial ruling arrived. Judge Brinkema decided that Google would not have to sell its ad business, thereby preserving its key products and services intact.

That said, the consequences for Google remain. Like the previous case, it’s expected to alter its business operations. The detailed remedies have yet to be disclosed in Brinkema’s official ruling, which should be available by the end of September.

Regardless of the specifics that come to light, this saga illustrates just how much trouble Google found itself in amidst laws designed to curb monopolies. Even as it narrowly avoided one of the most significant corporate breakups since AT&T, the path forward for Google seems uncertain. Will it learn from these brush-ups with the law, or is more trouble on the horizon?