Press "Enter" to skip to content
Views: 26
The U.S. government’s antitrust case against Google is reaching its final phase (Reuters / NPR), and data access is emerging as a key component in addressing a remedy. Federal Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled last August that Google illegally protected its monopoly in search, is now considering how to restore legitimate competition. Closing arguments set for this Friday (30 May – 2025).
The Core Issue: Data as the Monopoly Moat
udge Mehta noted Google gets 9× more search data than rivals, fueling a feedback loop where more data = better results = more users – a self-reinforcing advantage confirmed by Google’s own ranking signal slides in the trial. This advantage fuels a feedback loop: more data improves search quality, which attracts more users and advertisers – and further props up the monopoly. The DOJ called this the oxygen for search engines.
What the DOJ Proposes
The Justice Department and state attorneys general have proposed:
- Data-sharing mandates: Google would have to share user search and advertising data with competitors. Interesting but Search is changing so rapidly, what was cool data last week, is deprecated this week.
- Search index licensing: Competitors could access Google’s web index, which spans hundreds of billions of pages. We find this irrelevant in the era of AI search – data is in constant flux. Having access to a Google feed (which many already do on the down-low scraping) isn’t as big a deal as it first appears.
- Limits on default placement deals: Banning exclusive contracts with smartphone/browser vendors. Sure – whatever. The payment to Apple was always a “stay in your lane” to Apple (who has shown no aptitude for running a web wide SAS like a search engine)
- Potential Chrome divestiture: One of the more extreme proposals under consideration. Yes, chrome cornered the browser market and eyeballs for Google, but going forward, it is just a commodity that doesn’t do much for Google besides the default search.
The data access remedy sits in the middle of what Judge Mehta calls a remedy spectrum – between simple behavioral restrictions and full corporate breakup.
Privacy, IP, and Google’s Pushback
Google argues that forced data sharing is a “de facto breakup.” CEO Sundar Pichai testified that it would expose Google’s intellectual property and enable competitors to reverse-engineer its tech. Google also raised concerns about user privacy and the administrative burden of deciding what to share, when, and how.
Takeaway for Search
This case could set the tone for competition in AI-driven search. If Judge Mehta sides with the DOJ, rivals may gain access to the data needed to challenge Google’s dominance in both search and AI.
“The explosion of A.I. makes it even more important to have strong data-sharing remedies,” said Gene Kimmelman, former DOJ antitrust official.
As the CEO and founder of Pubcon Inc., Brett Tabke has been instrumental in shaping the landscape of online marketing and search engine optimization. His journey in the computer industry has spanned over three decades and has made him a pioneering force behind digital evolution. Full Bio
Visit Pubcon.com