DOJ Targets Google’s Search Monopoly With Sweeping Remedies—Why This Matters For Legal Marketing

The Trial That Could Reshape Online Search

For years, Google has dominated online search, but that grip on power is now under serious threat. In the most consequential antitrust trial the tech world has seen in decades, the Department of Justice is arguing that Google’s search empire wasn’t just built on better technology, it’s been protected through exclusive contracts, behind-the-scenes deals, and tactics that undercut competition before it ever had a chance. You can read up on the details of the trial here.

After months of testimony, cross-examination, and redacted financial disclosures, the DOJ has now laid out exactly how it believes Google has maintained an illegal monopoly, and more importantly, what it thinks the remedy should be. More specifically, these penalties are more like restructuring plans. And they touch nearly every corner of Google’s business, from how search appears on your phone to how advertisers bid on keywords.

For law firms spending heavily on digital ads or building organic search visibility, the outcome of this trial could change the rules of engagement. If the DOJ gets its way, the legal marketing world will be competing on a much more open playing field.

Below, we’re breaking down the DOJ’s proposed steps to tear apart Google’s illegal grip on the search and search advertising markets.

Breaking Google’s Grip on Distribution Deals

One of the DOJ’s primary targets is the billions Google pays each year to lock in its status as the default search engine on phones, browsers, and other platforms. These deals, especially with Apple and Android manufacturers, act as barriers for rivals trying to gain visibility.

Trial evidence revealed that Google paid Apple an estimated $20 billion in 2022 to remain the default search engine on iPhones. Agreements with Android device makers follow a similar pattern. While users can technically switch to another provider, the DOJ emphasized how defaults influence behavior and limit competition from reaching scale.

If these payment deals are prohibited, device makers would have more flexibility to preinstall or promote alternative search engines. More importantly, users could see prompts that offer a real choice in selecting a provider from the start.

This could mark a major change in how consumers search across device types. If competing engines gain meaningful ground, firms that prepare for a broader search environment will have an advantage in capturing early attention.

Separating Chrome From Google’s Core Business

The DOJ argues that Google’s control over search has been reinforced through its ownership of Chrome — a browser that accounts for an estimated 35% of all Google search queries. Chrome isn’t just a window to the internet. It’s a powerful gatekeeper that helps direct traffic, collect user data, and drive billions in advertising revenue.

One proposed fix would require Google to divest Chrome, spinning it off as a separate company. The DOJ believes this would prevent Google from using its browser to favor its own search engine over competitors. Evidence presented during the trial suggests that Google has held back investment in Chrome, not because of technical constraints, but because the browser already fulfills its purpose in keeping search defaults locked in.

If Chrome is no longer tied directly to Google Search, competing search engines could have a clearer path to reach users. It could also push browser companies to offer more meaningful search options during setup — not just one default baked in behind the scenes.

For law firms, this may change where search traffic comes from and how much influence Google has over client discovery. Marketing strategies built entirely around one ecosystem may need to evolve to keep pace with a more fragmented, browser-first search environment.

Forcing Google to Open Access to Search and Ad Data

Another proposed fix centers on one of Google’s biggest long-term advantages: the massive trove of user behavior data it collects through search activity and advertising performance. This data plays a key role in building better algorithms, improving search results, and training AI models.

Right now, Google keeps most of this information to itself. Competing search engines don’t have access to comparable user-side data or full visibility into the web through indexing. That lack of access makes it harder for other companies to improve their search capabilities, develop competitive products, or offer advertisers better tools.

The DOJ’s remedy would require Google to share more of this information. Specifically, competitors could gain access to anonymized data sets that include user interactions, search index coverage, and advertising metrics. The intent is to close the data gap that continues to shield Google from meaningful competition.

For advertisers, including law firms running paid campaigns, broader access to ad performance data could lead to more accurate reporting, improved targeting options, and better keyword planning across different platforms. For firms focused on organic traffic, it could open the door to stronger alternatives to Google when it comes to long-term visibility.

These changes wouldn’t transform the market overnight. But they could give competing platforms the tools to grow and offer advertisers greater clarity into where their budgets make the most impact.

Giving Advertisers More Control Over Keyword Targeting and Data

While much of the case has focused on search defaults and browser dominance, the DOJ is also targeting how Google manages the flow of advertising dollars. Specifically, the government is calling for changes that would increase transparency for advertisers and give them more control over how their budgets are spent.

One of the key proposals would require Google to provide advertisers with more detailed search query reports. These reports would include clearer breakdowns of which queries triggered their ads, helping marketers better understand where their money is going. Right now, much of that data is either withheld or grouped into vague performance summaries, making it harder to track ROI.

The DOJ also wants to limit how Google applies broad and automated keyword matching. Many advertisers have voiced concerns about how their ads are triggered for loosely related queries that don’t match their targeting strategy. Under the remedy, advertisers would have the option to opt out of these matching techniques and focus spending more precisely.

For law firms, this change could have a direct impact on ad performance. Legal keywords are among the most expensive in digital advertising, and even minor inefficiencies in keyword matching can drive up costs. More control over targeting means better budget allocation, stronger lead quality, and fewer wasted impressions.

This remedy wouldn’t disrupt how ads appear overnight, but it would give firms and agencies more tools to refine their strategy and more confidence in what they’re actually paying for.

Enforcing Change With Oversight and a Backup Plan for Android

The DOJ’s final proposed remedy focuses on long-term enforcement. If Google is ordered to make changes, there needs to be a system in place to make sure those changes aren’t undermined behind the scenes. To that end, the DOJ is calling for the creation of a technical oversight committee. This group would monitor Google’s compliance, identify any attempts to block competition through new tactics, and assess whether the remedies are actually improving market conditions.

But the remedy doesn’t stop there. The DOJ is also including a backup measure — a potential divestiture of Android. If, after five years, competition in the search market still hasn’t improved, the government could move to separate Android from Google entirely.

This part of the plan stems from Android’s role in reinforcing Google’s control over search. By preinstalling Google Search on Android phones and setting it as the default, the company makes it harder for competing search engines to gain user attention.

The DOJ views Android as a key lever of market power. If it remains under Google’s control, other remedies may not be enough to open the door for competitors.

For law firms, this remedy could have real implications for digital strategy. A breakup of Android would disrupt the link between mobile devices and Google Search, creating more chances for alternative search engines to compete and for law firms to connect with users in places that aren’t dominated by one provider.

What Law Firms Should Watch

If the DOJ gets the outcome it’s pushing for, the structure of online search could be rebuilt in ways that directly affect how legal advertisers compete. Each proposed remedy targets a different area where Google has built long-term control from default placement deals and browser tie-ins to locked-down ad data and limited advertiser options. And if those efforts don’t lead to stronger competition, the DOJ is prepared to go further, including the possibility of spinning off Android.

These proposed changes carry weight for law firms. Many rely on Google not just for paid ads, but for organic reach and long-term client acquisition. The trial has made it clear that the current system hasn’t operated on neutral ground. Google’s control over defaults, data, and distribution has shaped outcomes long before a user types anything into the search bar.

If even some of the DOJ’s remedies take hold, firms could see more options for reaching clients, more transparency in ad platforms, and better opportunities to measure performance outside of Google’s walls. Marketing plans that stay tied to a single provider may face new challenges, while those built to adapt will gain an edge.

TSEG helps law firms stay competitive no matter how the search space changes. We build marketing strategies that work across platforms, anticipate disruption, and deliver results whether Google stays on top or the market opens to new players.

No matter where this ruling lands, we’re ready and so are our clients. Learn more today.