The Daily – "The Landmark Google Antitrust Ruling"

September 4, 2025
Host: Rachel Abrams
Guest: David McCabe, Technology Reporter, The New York Times

Episode Overview

This episode explores the historic antitrust ruling against Google: how a federal court found Google had illegally maintained its monopoly over online search, but ultimately imposed a less severe penalty than many anticipated. Rachel Abrams and David McCabe break down the ruling, its implications for Google, the tech industry, and the growing race in artificial intelligence (AI). The discussion examines why the outcome was less severe than expected, the evolving definition of monopoly in tech, and how the explosive growth of AI shaped the court's thinking.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Background and Significance of the Ruling

[00:36–01:45]

• For decades, the government has struggled to regulate tech monopolies.
• This week saw “the most aggressive attempt in the modern era to level the playing field,” but the penalty handed to Google is viewed by many as a “slap on the wrist.”
• The ruling comes after a federal judge determined a year ago that Google broke the law by maintaining its search monopoly.

“It becomes clear within minutes that this is really a win for Google and a blow to the government’s efforts over now two different presidents to rein in the power of Silicon Valley.”
— David McCabe, [01:58]

[02:47–03:28]

• Despite having been found to have illegally maintained a monopoly, Google avoided heavy penalties—no forced break-up, no major divestitures.
• The remedies include sharing some data and search results with rivals, but only partially and without revealing Google’s "secret sauce."
• The market viewed it favorably; Google’s stock price rose after the decision.

2. How Did Google Avoid More Severe Penalties?

[03:28–05:07]

• The surprisingly light penalty is largely attributed to the rapid rise of AI, which introduced credible new competition in search and information retrieval.

"The answer to that question has a lot to do with artificial intelligence, which has, for the first time in decades, called into question whether Google will own the future of how people look for information online.”
— David McCabe, [03:28]

• The future of search is murky as AI products like ChatGPT, Gemini, and others disrupt traditional web search.

3. The Antitrust Case: Government vs. Google

[04:17–06:46]

• The U.S. government's central argument: Google paid billions to default as the search engine on browsers and devices, creating a feedback loop that stifled competition and harmed consumers (not through prices, but through quality and lack of choice).
• Google’s defense: People use Google because it's the best, not because it’s forced on them.

"Antitrust law often in the last many decades has looked at, is there a price increase for consumers? And Google ultimately has a cost of $0.”
— David McCabe, [04:57]

• The judge found, in the first phase, that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly, but the penalty phase—figuring out the correct remedy—was far more complex.

4. The Transformative Role of AI in the Case

[10:48–13:40]

• The AI revolution arrived mid-trial, fundamentally shifting the landscape. OpenAI’s ChatGPT (Nov. 2022) and similar products changed how people find information.
• Google’s enormous advantage in search data could allow it to dominate AI—government warned if unchecked, Google could monopolize the next tech frontier.
• Google argued AI competition proved the market was “working,” and radical remedies were unwarranted.

“The judge in this case had to adjust to this new reality. And ultimately it changed the course of the case.”
— David McCabe, [08:29]

5. Judge’s Remedies: What Google Must (and Doesn’t Have to) Do

[14:34–17:47]

• Remedy 1: Google banned from entering into some exclusive default deals (e.g., paying Apple or Samsung to make Google the only default). Non-exclusive deals allowed, but practical impact remains uncertain.
• Remedy 2: Google must share parts of its search results and web index with qualified rivals, making it slightly easier for competitors to build alternatives.

“They will be required to syndicate their search results to ‘qualified competitors’… But Google is going to be able to do so basically on the terms of commercial agreements that they already have.”
— David McCabe, [16:10]

• Most aggressive remedies, like breaking up Google or forcing it to divest Chrome or Android, were not imposed.
• The judge cited legal limits and the case’s evolving context: “A court needs to apply remedies like this with humility.” ([19:12])

6. The Precedent and Impact for Consumers

[19:25–22:43]

• The explosion of AI factored into the judge’s restraint because “innovative companies” might now be able to compete directly against Google.
• Consumers will likely not notice immediate changes; remedies do not require visible changes, such as a “choice screen” for search defaults.
• The analogy to the Microsoft antitrust case: Even mild remedies and regulatory scrutiny can have long-term, culture-shifting effects on tech giants, as Microsoft’s caution led to Google’s rise.

“It’s kind of interesting, actually, to note that Google took advantage of a cultural shift at a company that was scared because of a government lawsuit. And now, the question is, could there be a cultural shift at Google…?”
— Rachel Abrams, [22:43]

7. What’s Next: Ongoing Legal Battles & Industry Uncertainty

[21:45–25:30]

• Appeals are expected from both sides, potentially delaying implementation for years.
• Unresolved: Will these new rules give a challenger the chance to compete with Google, or will Google’s dominance persist?

“But the game's still going. And so the question is, has the judge in this case changed the rules of the game enough to give one of the rookie players enough space on the field to compete with Google? Or have the rules changed too little and Google will just play the game again and win again?”
— David McCabe, [24:22]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Slap-on-the-Wrist Nature of the Ruling:
  “It was telling that despite… Google being mandated to do some of these things, its stock price actually jumped after the ruling.”
  — David McCabe, [02:47]

• On Judges Deciding Tech’s Future:
  “He says, I’m not an expert in search engines, I’m not an expert in artificial intelligence. He says, it’s not a judge’s forte to look into a crystal ball and tell the future.”
  — David McCabe, [18:57]

• On Regulators Keeping Pace:
  “Their reaction was that it paled in comparison to the speed and scale at which the technology industry is barreling ahead.”
  — David McCabe, [24:22]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:36] Episode Introduction/Overview
• [01:45] The ruling arrives; Google avoids harsh penalties
• [03:28] Role of AI in reshaping the case
• [04:38] What counts as harm in digital antitrust
• [06:46] The existential stakes for Google and the judge’s power
• [10:48] AI's explosion and its impact on antitrust remedies
• [14:34] Remedies: Defaults and data-sharing explained
• [16:57] The “secret sauce” Google keeps
• [17:56] Breaking up Google? Why it didn’t happen
• [19:25] AI’s role in softening the remedy
• [21:45] Impact on consumers and slow legal appeals
• [22:43] Lessons from Microsoft’s antitrust precedent
• [24:22] Will remedies shift the competitive landscape?

Conclusion: Lingering Questions

While the court’s remedies mark a historic moment for tech regulation, the practical impact appears modest—at least for now. The rapid evolution of AI was central to the judge’s decision to act cautiously, underlining both the uncertainty and difficulty of regulating technology at breakneck speed. The real effects—on Google, its rivals, and consumers—may only emerge years down the line, in ways as unpredictable as the tech industry itself.

“The game’s still going.” — David McCabe, [24:22]