Google's Antitrust Reckoning: U.S. and India Take Action
Reading the antitrust news about Google this past week gave me a keen sense of déjà vu as I thought back to my years at Intel and what it was like to witness its historic regulatory battles from the perspective of an employee (more on that in a moment).
During a week packed with regulatory friction, Google faces serious domestic and international challenges with legal actions that promise to shake the foundations of its business model. In the U.S., the Department of Justice (DOJ) is now in the remedies phase of its antitrust case against Google. The court already ruled that Google violated antitrust laws by using multi-billion-dollar contracts to entrench its search engine dominance. Those exclusive deals — like the reported $20 billion agreement with Apple — are now in the crosshairs of regulators. The DOJ’s proposed remedies could go as far as banning those contracts altogether or even forcing a Chrome browser divestiture.
In a separate case, a U.S. District Court found Google’s advertising business to be an illegal monopoly — one that actively suppressed competition and harmed publishers through a tightly controlled ad stack. The DOJ is pushing for a breakup here too, potentially including the sale of Google Ad Manager.
Outside the U.S., Google has just settled a longstanding case with India’s Competition Commission regarding its Android TV practices. The settlement, which includes a $2.38 million payment, will loosen Google’s grip on device manufacturers, allowing more freedom to choose non-Google apps and services. While this is a rounding error on Google’s balance sheet, it reflects growing global interest in holding the company accountable to anti-competitive measures.
Déjà Vu: Intel’s Antitrust Era
For those of us who have been in tech long enough to remember, Google’s situation feels eerily familiar. Let’s face it. The tech industry is ripe with antitrust challenges, and recent history has filled the headlines with companies including Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm facing legal challenges regarding anti-competitive practices.
During my tenure at Intel, I had a front-row seat to what it means to operate under a regulatory microscope. Intel was repeatedly investigated — and fined — for allegedly using its x86 CPU market position to suppress competition, particularly from AMD. The landmark 2009 European Commission decision fined Intel €1.06 billion (then $1.45 billion), claiming that the company gave rebates to PC makers and retailers in exchange for exclusivity, effectively locking out AMD. Though Intel spent over a decade appealing the ruling, the reputational and strategic impact was immediate and lasting. The FTC also launched its own suit, which Intel settled in 2010 by agreeing to a slew of business practice changes.
Those years were...educational. Internally, every marketing strategy and partner engagement had to be re-evaluated under the lens of compliance. Creativity and flexibility in the market were absolutely curtailed, and while the business remained strong, the regulatory pressure opened the door for new competitors and architectural shifts — including the rise of Arm and resurgence of AMD. And that’s what these restrictions are supposed to do – open the door to competition that benefits the broader market and customers.
Now, Google is facing a similar inflection point. What’s at stake isn’t just its business practices — it’s the foundational structure of its revenue model, particularly in advertising and browser dominance. If remedies go as far as DOJ proposals suggest, Google could be forced to rewrite the rulebook on how it competes, once again opening the door to new competitors in the market.
The TechArena Take
At TechArena, we’re watching this moment closely — because it’s not just about Google. It’s about how innovation and market power intersect, and how regulatory pressure can unlock or stifle competition. If history is any indication, the companies that come out on top in these moments aren’t the ones who just fight the legal battle — they’re the ones drive disruptive change into one player dominant markets at time of regulatory pressure. We celebrate open competition and standards-based tech stack innovation, and we’re excited to see how this regulatory pressure cooker will foment in new opportunity for the market and customer engagement.
Reading the antitrust news about Google this past week gave me a keen sense of déjà vu as I thought back to my years at Intel and what it was like to witness its historic regulatory battles from the perspective of an employee (more on that in a moment).
During a week packed with regulatory friction, Google faces serious domestic and international challenges with legal actions that promise to shake the foundations of its business model. In the U.S., the Department of Justice (DOJ) is now in the remedies phase of its antitrust case against Google. The court already ruled that Google violated antitrust laws by using multi-billion-dollar contracts to entrench its search engine dominance. Those exclusive deals — like the reported $20 billion agreement with Apple — are now in the crosshairs of regulators. The DOJ’s proposed remedies could go as far as banning those contracts altogether or even forcing a Chrome browser divestiture.
In a separate case, a U.S. District Court found Google’s advertising business to be an illegal monopoly — one that actively suppressed competition and harmed publishers through a tightly controlled ad stack. The DOJ is pushing for a breakup here too, potentially including the sale of Google Ad Manager.
Outside the U.S., Google has just settled a longstanding case with India’s Competition Commission regarding its Android TV practices. The settlement, which includes a $2.38 million payment, will loosen Google’s grip on device manufacturers, allowing more freedom to choose non-Google apps and services. While this is a rounding error on Google’s balance sheet, it reflects growing global interest in holding the company accountable to anti-competitive measures.
Déjà Vu: Intel’s Antitrust Era
For those of us who have been in tech long enough to remember, Google’s situation feels eerily familiar. Let’s face it. The tech industry is ripe with antitrust challenges, and recent history has filled the headlines with companies including Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm facing legal challenges regarding anti-competitive practices.
During my tenure at Intel, I had a front-row seat to what it means to operate under a regulatory microscope. Intel was repeatedly investigated — and fined — for allegedly using its x86 CPU market position to suppress competition, particularly from AMD. The landmark 2009 European Commission decision fined Intel €1.06 billion (then $1.45 billion), claiming that the company gave rebates to PC makers and retailers in exchange for exclusivity, effectively locking out AMD. Though Intel spent over a decade appealing the ruling, the reputational and strategic impact was immediate and lasting. The FTC also launched its own suit, which Intel settled in 2010 by agreeing to a slew of business practice changes.
Those years were...educational. Internally, every marketing strategy and partner engagement had to be re-evaluated under the lens of compliance. Creativity and flexibility in the market were absolutely curtailed, and while the business remained strong, the regulatory pressure opened the door for new competitors and architectural shifts — including the rise of Arm and resurgence of AMD. And that’s what these restrictions are supposed to do – open the door to competition that benefits the broader market and customers.
Now, Google is facing a similar inflection point. What’s at stake isn’t just its business practices — it’s the foundational structure of its revenue model, particularly in advertising and browser dominance. If remedies go as far as DOJ proposals suggest, Google could be forced to rewrite the rulebook on how it competes, once again opening the door to new competitors in the market.
The TechArena Take
At TechArena, we’re watching this moment closely — because it’s not just about Google. It’s about how innovation and market power intersect, and how regulatory pressure can unlock or stifle competition. If history is any indication, the companies that come out on top in these moments aren’t the ones who just fight the legal battle — they’re the ones drive disruptive change into one player dominant markets at time of regulatory pressure. We celebrate open competition and standards-based tech stack innovation, and we’re excited to see how this regulatory pressure cooker will foment in new opportunity for the market and customer engagement.
.png)
