Google is going to appeal the ruling of a U.S. district court judge, according to which the tech giant acted illegally to remain a monopoly in online search. The judgment by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a big loss for Google, which could change both the way the tech giant does business in the future and, essentially, the structure of the Internet as it now exists depending on the outcome.

Mehta said Google had wielded its monopoly power over the search business, theoretically in part because the company had paid companies like Apple to make its search engine the default choice on their devices and web browsers. The Justice Department and states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google in 2020, which began in court in September 2023. Google has paid billions for a spot on web browser and smartphones to companies like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla. Just in 2021, it paid nearly $26 billion to become the search default on Apple and Android. According to The New York Times, over $18 billion of that went to Apple. Google pays Apple just less than it pays governments the world over: it's 36% of the money it nets from advertising by directing website traffic to Safari as the default browser on iPhones and across Apple devices. The claim of the government is that, through dominance purchases, Google foreclosed its rivals to the point that they would be able to build up search engines at scale sufficient to obtain the data and reach needed to remain viable competitors. "Upon consideration of the entire record evidence at trial, the pre-trial record, and the arguments of counsel the Court reaches the following conclusions: Google is a monopolist and has maintained its monopoly power through exclusionary practices that violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act," he wrote in an opinion filed Monday.

 Google's legal spokesperson said that the firm had always taken its dominant position in the market as the means through which it could work out an approach to developing the best and most useful search engine, which will serve the interests of both consumers and advertisers. "The decision acknowledges that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that it should not be allowed to make it readily available," Walker told . "We thank the court for noting that Google is 'the best search engine in the industry, trusted by hundreds of millions of users every day,' and that Google 'has been the best search engine by a wide margin, and particularly on mobile devices, for many years.'" It further added: "continues to innovate in search," and "Apple and Mozilla have from time to time evaluated Google's search quality against that of its competitors and determined that Google is superior.

The banner opinion bringing to a close years of litigation   the U.S. et al. v. Google was filed by the Department of Justice and a group of attorneys general from 38 states and territories, led by Colorado and Nebraska. They filed similar but separate antitrust suits in 2020, accusing Google of blocking out would-be search rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo. The Department of Justice estimated Google's share of the search market at 90%, which Google contested.

The ruling represents an important victory for the Justice Department in an election year when former president Donald Trump would almost certainly have had a much more hands-off, deregulatory approach to tech should he win a second term in office. Known as a big-tech company antagonist, Lina Khan is one of the names slated to head the Federal Trade Commission under President Joe Biden, a move that rattled most of the big tech companies in the country due to antitrust-related cases. The Department of Justice has sued Apple, claiming the company has made it harder for consumers to turn away from the iPhone. The FTC, meanwhile, recently sued Meta over its strategies to squeeze out early competitors and Amazon over claims the company is hurting sellers on its online marketplace. Mehta's ruling could also have implications for the second of the Justice Department's antitrust suits against Google   this one accusing the company of illegally monopolizing the wellspring of cash that fuels its dominance of the digital advertising market. Oral arguments in that case are due to begin on September 9.

The judge has not yet ruled on Google. He was able to force the company to change the way he manages his research activities and order it to sell a part of the company. But, naturally, that opinion can be appealed and the final judgment could differ greatly, as in the famous Microsoft antitrust case of the dot-com era, where Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft had violated antitrust laws and ordered Microsoft to split into two entities; Microsoft appealed this decision, and the appeal court canceled the collapse order, but Microsoft had to take certain measures. This could have Google's funds of Mehta behaviour impacted to, experts believe. The Microsoft Regulation forced the company to let the API be shared with a group part third company and a group to be appointed to deal with compliance.