The technological giant Google has just suffered another legal blow in the United States, losing a historical antitrust case. This follows from the loss of the company in a similar case last year.
The giant of social networks is also currently involved in a historical legal battle in the United States that could not only work, but how millions of people around the world communicate.
The hearings in the community case this week in a Washington DC court, after the CEO of Meta Mark Zuckerberg could not resolve the case for $ 450 million.
Brought by the Federal Trade Commission of the United States (FTC), the lawsuit alleges that Break Hogar the antimonopoly laws and illegally assured the monopoly on social media platforms.
Together with Google and Meta, Amazon and Apple also face antitrust challenges in the United States.
All these actions continue despite the main changes in both the FTC and in the United States Department of Justice as a result of the election of Donald Trump.
Collectively, these cases represent a substantial regulatory impulse to potentially examine and stop the power of the large technology market. So what are all cases of thesis exactly? What are the next steps in each of them? And what could mean for consumers? Cases against Google
The case that Google has just lost was related to online advertising.
The United States Department of Justice claimed that Google had behaved anti -competitively to monopolize the digital advertising technology complex. This market facilitates the purchase and sale of online ads.
The US District Judge, Leonie Brinkema, Earreen Google has the monopoly on the tools used by online editors to accommodate the advertising space, and the software that facilitates transactions between editors and advertisers.
In his ruling, Judge Brinkema said that Google had “intentionally compromised a series of anti -competitive acts” that finally turned out that “monopoly power in the Publisher Publisher de Web advertisement market.”
Google has said that the decision will appeal. The Department of Justice will ask the Court to require Google to disintegrate parts of its advertising technology business when the resource phase of this trial begins at the end of this month.
Predetermined search engine
The second case involving Google is related to the Internet search.
The Department of Justice argued that Google used exclusion agreements, such as paying Apple one billion annually to be the predetermined search engine on iPhones, to block competitors.
In August 2024, a federal judge ruled that Google acted illegally to maintain his search monopoly.
The case has now moved to the Remedios phase. A crucial remedy trial is scheduled to start next week.
Duration this, the court will hear arguments about what actions should be taken against Google.
Potential remedies could be significant, and regulators suggest measures as restrictions in the Android Google operating system or even forcing the sale of their Chrome browser.
Google has declared its intention to appeal this decision too.
The case against goal
The case of the FTC against Meta alleges that the technological giant illegally maintained the monopoly in the market for “personal social media services.”
The nucleus of the FTC argument is that Meta used a “purchase or bury” strategy to eliminate competitive threats.
This supposedly consisted of acquiring nascent rivals, most Instagram cases in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, specifically to neutralize them before they could challenge Facebook’s domain.
The FTC points to internal communications as evidence of anti -petite intention.
These include Mark Zuckerberg’s statement, “it is better to buy than to compete.”
They also include an internal memorandum that Zuckerberg considered to turn Instagram in 2018 about Conerns about antitrust scrutiny.
The Commission argues that the goal actions stifled innovation and damaged consumers by limiting the options. You are looking to force the goal to unintentionally or sell, both Instagram and WhatsApp.
Meta vigorously defends your actions. He argues that he does not have a monopoly, facing a fierce competition of platforms such as Taptok, YouTube and X (formally Twitter).
The company argues that Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions were pro competitive, which allowed the goal to invest billions to improve and climb the applications, ultimately, benefiting users. A key defense point is that FTC itself reviewed and approved both agreements about a decade ago.
The trial is expected to last eight weeks.
Cases against Apple and Amazon
In March 2024, the Department of Justice, together with several states, Sed Apple, claiming that it illegally maintains a monopoly in the smartphone market.
The demand states that Apple uses its control over the iPhone ecosystem to suffocate competition and innovation, for example, degrading the messaging quality between iPhones and Android devices and limiting the functionality of third -party digital wallets and smart watches.
Apple presented a motion to dismiss the case in August 2024. The litigation is in its early stages and is expected to continue for several years.
In September 2023, the FTC, linked by numerous states, also thirst Amazon.
The demand alleges that the illegal technological giant maintains the monopoly power both in the “online superstiendas” market (where consumers buy) and the “online market services” (for third -party sellers).
The FTC states that Amazon uses intertwined anti -competitive tactics. These include punishing sellers for offering lower prices in other places, coercing sellers to use their services, degrading search results with excessive ads and collecting exorbitant rates of the seller.
At the end of 2024, Judge President greatly denied Amazon’s attempt to dismiss the central federal claims, allowing the case to be processed.
Currently, a trial is scheduled for October 2026.
The main structural changes could reach the tasks together, the thesis demands represented the most significant antitrust application impulse against the main technology companies in the United States in decades. They mean a fundamental reexamal of how competence laws apply to digital platforms and rapid volume ecosystems.
The results could potentially lead to large structural changes. These changes could include the forced rupture of companies such as goal, or significant behavior remedies that restore the way the thesis companies operate.
Regardless of the specific results, decisions in these cases will probably establish crucial legal precedents. In turn, these will deeply shape the future competitive panorama for technology. They will also probably influence regulation worldwide and impact innovation and investment throughout the digital economy.
What the cases do not reflect is the change in the independence of regulatory bodies in the United States, where consistency with White House policy is now essential. The results will surely prove the relationship between Trump and the “technological bos” that literally have recently been by their side.
Posted on April 19, 2025
