WASHINGTON – The U.S. Justice Department argues that Google’s dominance as the top internet search engine amounts to an illegal monopoly, reinforced by over $20 billion in annual spending to suppress competition. This claim was presented during closing arguments in a significant antitrust lawsuit. Google, however, insists that its market leadership stems from delivering superior search results that users prefer.

Closing arguments took place on Friday, with the U.S. government, a coalition of states, and Google presenting their cases before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta. After a ten-week trial, Judge Mehta will decide whether Google has unlawfully maintained its monopoly.

A key issue in the trial, which is one of the most critical antitrust cases in decades, is Google’s contracts with companies like Apple that make Google the default search engine on many devices. Evidence shows that Google spends over $20 billion annually on these agreements. Justice Department attorneys argue that this expenditure illustrates Google’s efforts to secure its dominance and block competitors.

Google argues that users can easily switch to other search engines but choose Google because of its superior performance. Apple representatives testified that they partner with Google due to its unmatched search capabilities. Google also contends that the government’s market definition is too narrow, claiming competition from platforms like Amazon, AirBnB, Yelp, and social media companies such as Facebook and TikTok.

Judge Mehta questioned whether these other companies truly compete in the same market, noting that social media platforms generate revenue through targeted ads, while Google focuses on responding to user search queries.

Google’s lawyer, John Schmidtlein, argued that social media companies have extensive data on user interests, potentially rivaling Google’s data. He also noted that Google’s market position isn’t as secure as it once was, referencing how experts once believed Yahoo would dominate search.

Although Google’s search services are free for users, the company generates revenue by selling ads that accompany search results. Justice Department attorney David Dahlquist argued that Google’s monopoly enables it to charge higher prices to advertisers, which ultimately affects consumers. He suggested that internal Google documents indicate the company may have manipulated ad algorithms to boost revenue, sometimes at the expense of ad quality.

Schmidtlein countered that Google’s search ads have improved over time, with click rates rising from 10% to 30%.

Judge Mehta has not provided a timeline for his ruling, which could take several months. If he finds Google violated antitrust laws, a separate “remedies” phase will determine how to increase competition in the search-engine market. The government has not yet disclosed what remedies it might seek.