The U.S. government, joined by a coalition of states, is pushing its showdown with Google into the appeals court, refusing to let a pivotal antitrust ruling end on a muted note.
Court filings show federal officials are challenging a decision that labeled Google a monopolist in online search—but stopped short of imposing the most severe penalties. The earlier ruling acknowledged Google’s dominance and faulted its conduct, yet declined to force a breakup or dismantle key business arrangements.
At the heart of the appeal is what the trial judge chose not to do. Regulators are expected to target the refusal to require Google to spin off its Chrome browser or unwind its multibillion-dollar deal that keeps Google as the default search engine on Apple devices—agreements critics say cement Google’s grip on the market.
Google, meanwhile, is fighting on its own front. The company has already appealed the finding that it violated antitrust law to shield its search and advertising businesses from competition. It is also asking the court to freeze any requirement that it share data with rivals while the appeals process—likely a long one—plays out.
The judge rejected sweeping remedies, including selling off Chrome or Android or banning payments that secure default placement on smartphones and computers. In explaining the limits of his order, he pointed to the changing tech landscape, noting that new players powered by generative artificial intelligence have emerged as fresh competitive pressure on Google since the case was first filed years ago.
For Google, the decision was a narrow escape from structural penalties. For antitrust enforcers, it underscored a familiar frustration: courts remain cautious about reshaping fast-moving technology markets, even after finding unlawful conduct. The appeals court will now decide whether that caution went too far.
