‘I’m glad it’s over.’ This is how Google CEO Sundar Pichai responded when Trump congratulated the company on the judgement in a recent landmark antitrust case. This happened during a dinner Trump hosted for the tech bros, from Pichai to Meta’s Zuckerberg.
Pichai’s response was only natural.
For about a year, the US District Court for the District of Columbia had given sleepless nights to Google’s executives. In 2024, federal judge Amit Mehta of the aforementioned court ruled: ‘After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly’.
Google was found by the court to be violative of the Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. And when earlier this year the potential remedies were being discussed by the court, the Justice Department reportedly called for Chrome to be hived off from Google. There was momentum against Google, and expectations were that there would be some serious consequences for the ‘monopolist’. So when nothing severe happened as judge Amit Mehta ruled in September 2025 about the remedies, Google executives — and investors, who added 230 billion dollars to Google’s market cap a day after the judgement — were understandably quite relieved.
But a bit unusual was what Pichai did not speak about. When Trump blamed Biden for prosecuting Google, ‘Pichai did not correct him’.
It was actually under the first Trump administration in 2020 that the Justice Department moved the case against Google. And, as highlighted above, it was under Trump 2.0 that the US government called for the breaking up of Google.
Back to the ruling. What remedies has judge Amit Mehta noted in the judgement? As the Justice Department explains, the ruling:
prohibited Google from from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app; ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals; and ordered Google to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete.
As I explain in my recent opinion piece for Moneycontrol, the ruling falls short on many counts:
First, Google can still pay the likes of Apple and Samsung for the prime placement of its products. Second, Chrome and Android will continue to remain with Google — hence, no breakup of the monopoly. Third, Google is only required to share a limited portion of its search index data.
The judgement will only further embolden the Big Tech players — many of whom have similar pending cases against them in the US courts. More powerful Big Tech players also means less bargaining power with developing states like India that attempt to hold them accountable through domestic regulation.
The pertinent question amid all the antitrust and monopoly debates in the US and elsewhere is should courts and regulators deal with tech platforms which are unlike monopolists in, say, the oil or automobile sectors? Are tools like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 even useful in dealing with tech platforms such as Google, Meta, X?
Michael C. Munger from the Duke University raises questions about the effectiveness of traditional antitrust policy in dealing with the tech giants of today in his following journal article:
Munger, M.C. “Giants among us: do we need a new antitrust paradigm?” Constitutional Political Economy 33, 445–460 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-021-09350-w
The paper begins by covering the history of how the US government's role in the economy has evolved over five epochs. From the founding of the US in 1776 to about 1890, contracts or agreements that restrained trade were only restricted by common law. There was high antitrust activity after the Sherman Act was enacted in 1890 till about 1920. Industry-government cooperation defined the 1921–1940 period. During the 1941–1977 period, the government managed the monopolies by applying some restrictions on mergers and acquisitions even as businesses were assured of other protections in the market. However, it was from 1978 to mid-2010s that ‘[a]ntitrust activism was sharply curtailed as courts internalized and institutionalized the “Consumer Welfare Standard” championed by Chicago Law and Economics theorists and particularly by Robert Bork in his 1978 book, The Antitrust Paradox.’ (emphasis in original)
Munger then discusses the emerging sixth epoch (in response to the platform economy) which wants to abandon the consumer welfare standard (or CWS in short) and go back to the original Sherman Act of 1890. Munger calls this the new paradigm.
The primary reason tech platforms emerge and have been successful is because they solve for ‘trust’.
In fact, much of the increasing returns to scale in platforms derives from the first-mover advantage in solving the “trust” problem. Suppose you have a new app that could serve as a platform for ridesharing, for apartment-sharing, or for restaurant reviews. No one will use until there are enough reviews to have some certainty about trust, but you can’t get reviews unless someone uses the app.
Some of the tech platforms create consumer surplus because they operate as efficient monopolies. If such tech platforms are broken up, what about the heavy losses to consumer welfare?
Munger’s key argument is that the consumer welfare standard ‘is the only antitrust standard that should be given legal standing, we have to learn to live among the giants, and learn to use their enormous powers.’
Munger does not, however, offer any alternative paradigms that will work for tech monopolies while acknowledging that the problem is not so much in market power, as it is in the concentration of social and political power.
But when market power bestows increasing social and political power, can these elements be looked at separately? Is there a way to reconcile the CWS with remedies that address abuse of market powers? Something that works for tech companies that build and operate gigantic tech platforms?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.