Google’s antitrust appeal: if you don’t change defaults, do you change anything?

/ Technology / By

Summary: Google is appealing the US antitrust ruling that found it illegally held a monopoly in online search—and it’s asking the court to pause the remedies ordered so far. The debate is now less about whether Google is powerful (it is) and more about whether the proposed fixes change anything meaningful.

A useful way to read the story is to treat it like a “default power” case: if your search engine is the default almost everywhere, you can win even if competitors are good.

The situation in one paragraph

From the BBC report:

  • A US judge found Google illegally maintained a search monopoly.
  • Google has appealed and wants a halt to remedies.
  • The judge rejected calls for a breakup (including spinning off Chrome).
  • Remedies instead focus on requirements like sharing certain data with qualified competitors and allowing rivals to syndicate Google results.

Why ‘break up Google’ didn’t happen

Breakups are politically dramatic and legally difficult.

Courts often prefer remedies that:

  • preserve business continuity
  • avoid destabilising markets
  • are easier to monitor than corporate surgery

But there’s a trade: if remedies are too cautious, they don’t change behaviour.

The question is whether “share some data” plus “allow some syndication” actually reduces Google’s ability to control the search market.

Default power is the hidden moat

A big part of search dominance is distribution:

  • browsers
  • smartphones
  • the default search box

If a user never changes defaults, the incumbent wins by inertia.

So the most effective remedies historically target:

  • exclusive deals
  • default placement
  • tying search to browsers or operating systems

If the remedy package doesn’t change defaults, Google can remain dominant even if it shares some index data.

The search index remedy: powerful, but risky

The BBC notes the judge ordered Google to share certain data, including portions of its index.

This could help rivals by lowering the cost barrier.

But the risk is creating a “Google-as-wholesaler” world where competitors depend on Google’s backend.

A robust remedy would need guardrails:

  • clear privacy protections
  • strict auditing
  • limits on use and redistribution
  • a time horizon (so competitors still have incentives to build)

Privacy: a real argument, but not a veto

Google argues data sharing risks Americans’ privacy.

That can be true, depending on implementation.

But privacy can’t be a blanket shield against competition remedies. The right response is:

  • minimise data sharing
  • aggregate where possible
  • enforce security standards
  • penalise misuse

Otherwise, “privacy” becomes a permanent reason to never impose interoperability.

AI is the complicating variable

The judge noted generative AI changed the course of the case.

That matters because:

  • AI may reduce dependence on classic search
  • AI may create new defaults (assistant buttons baked into devices)
  • AI may concentrate power again (if only a few firms can afford frontier models)

So regulators may end up loosening Google’s grip on traditional search while a new gatekeeper emerges.

If you’re not breaking up Google, what is success?

A practical definition of successful remedies would be:

  • more search providers reaching users by default
  • measurable switching and multi-homing
  • real innovation in ranking approaches
  • a healthier ecosystem of independent indexes

If the outcome is simply “Google shares data and stays the default,” it’s not a competitive reset.

What to watch next

  1. Will the appeal delay remedies for years?
  2. Do remedies meaningfully change default placement?
  3. Are competitors allowed to innovate, or just resell Google?
  4. Does AI become the new default gatekeeper?

Bottom line

The appeal shifts the spotlight to remedy design.

If policymakers want genuine competition in search, they must tackle default distribution—not just data access. Otherwise, the case will end with a legal headline and a market that looks largely the same.

Sources

n English