Judge Allows Antitrust Case Against Google to Proceed
- A U.S. federal judge has ruled that a consumer antitrust lawsuit accusing Google of maintaining an illegal monopoly in online search may move forward.
- The case centers on agreements the company made with major tech firms to secure its position as the default search engine.
- While some older claims were dismissed, the core allegations remain intact.
Core Antitrust Claims Survive Google’s Dismissal Bid
Google was unable to convince a California federal judge to dismiss a consumer lawsuit alleging the company used business agreements to block rivals in the search market. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to proceed with their main claims under federal antitrust law. The lawsuit mirrors allegations raised in a U.S. Justice Department case that resulted in a 2024 ruling declaring Google an illegal search monopoly. Lin’s order allows the case to continue while limiting claims tied to conduct before 2017, though plaintiffs may attempt to reassert them.
The complaint argues that Google secured its dominance by paying Apple, Android phone manufacturers, wireless carriers and browser developers to set Google as the default search engine. Plaintiffs say these deals prevented competing search engines from gaining visibility and scale. They contend that alternatives could have offered fewer ads, stronger privacy protections or even user compensation if not for Google’s arrangements. Google has denied wrongdoing and previously argued that such incentives from competitors were unrealistic.
Judge Cites Evidence of Harm to Competition
Judge Lin noted that the complaint referenced smaller search engines that attempted to differentiate themselves with rewards or ad‑free experiences. These companies allegedly struggled to grow because Google’s agreements limited their ability to reach users. The judge found these examples plausible enough to support the claim that Google’s conduct harmed competition. Neither Google nor the plaintiffs’ attorneys provided immediate public comment following the ruling.
The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California under the name James Attridge et al. v. Google, adds to the mounting legal challenges facing the company. Google has faced increasing scrutiny from regulators and courts over its business practices in search, advertising and mobile software. The case is being led by attorneys David Boies and Mark Mao for the plaintiffs, with Google represented by Sonal Mehta and David Gringer. Further proceedings will determine whether the plaintiffs can prove that Google’s agreements unlawfully restricted consumer choice.
The legal team representing the plaintiffs includes David Boies, who previously argued major U.S. antitrust cases such as the government’s lawsuit against Microsoft in the late 1990s. That case reshaped the tech industry and remains one of the most influential antitrust actions in modern history. Some analysts have drawn parallels between the two disputes, noting that both center on default software settings and market‑shaping agreements.
