Google’s remedies trial over its search monopoly verdict started Monday in Washington, D.C.

Here’s what news media companies need to know about the U.S. Justice Department’s anti-trust case against Google Search:

1. What just happened

The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) wants a court to force Google to sell its Chrome browser as both sides reveal their preferred remedies to Google’s illegal monopoly in search. Google prefers to cease its contracts with Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla that embed Google search in their products. Click here for coverage from Bloomberg and CNBC.

2. What the government wants

In addition to the sale of Chrome, the Justice Department wants Google to syndicate its search results and advertising to its competitors. The government also wants the option of forcing a sale of the Android mobile platform if the Chrome sale does not resolve the monopoly.

3. What Google wants

Google argued the court should only focus on the areas that were central to the anti-trust case. It proposed a forced termination of its contracts with device and software providers that embed Google Search (for example, the contract with Apple which is worth US$20 billion to Apple annually). Google says the Justice Department’s proposed solutions would stifle innovation and harm consumers.

4. What it means for the tech ecosystem

The DoJ wants the federal court to impose restrictions to also prevent Google using its current search dominance as a springboard to dominance in AI search or wider Artificial Intelligence models.

Best new revelation: The DoJ revealed on Monday that Google has paid Samsung “enormous sums” since January 2025 to embed Google’s Gemini AI tools into its smartphones.

5. Key takeaway for news media companies

Traditional Internet search is fast coming to an end as the lifeblood for news media companies. This has been caused by the arrival of many AI-fuelled search tools that summarise results and increasingly do not include any weblinks to source articles.

Google Search has also started doing this. Any court-ruled remedies in this case are unlikely to change this mega-trend. This is a reminder news publishers need to urgently increase their investment in generating direct traffic to their brands.

Case background

A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled last year that Google held a monopoly in Internet search. This is a preliminary hearing into possible legal remedies. The court will decide these by September.

The case started in 2020 under the first Trump Administration. The new administration has indicated its continued support of anti-trust cases against Google’s parent Alphabet and Meta.

Wider context

This anti-trust case is separate from those involving Google’s adtech monopoly and Google Play store monopolies, although remedies may overlap. Google is running out of options to appeal and instead appears to be pivoting towards seeking an orderly restructure to focus on its vast cloud and AI businesses.

The next step in the anti-trust ruling against Google for illegally monopolising advertising technology starts in late April when a timeline will be laid out.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .