Branding Google a Criminal Is a Defeat for the American Spirit
While Google may have dodged the bullet of a breakup, living under the constant threat of regulators is a price no innovator should have to pay
Judge Amit Mehta’s sentence in the Department of Justice’s internet-search antitrust case against Google is hailed as a victory for the tech giant.
Mehta found Google guilty of monopolistic behavior for paying Apple, Samsung, and others to be their default search engine.1 Yet the remedies — limits on contract duration and an inconsequential data-sharing mandate — are merely a slap on the wrist.2
Critics fumed. Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, said: “It’s like a defendant robbed a series of banks and the court verdict found them guilty, then sentenced them to probation under which they may continue robbing banks but must share data on how they rob banks.”3
But the real travesty isn’t leniency — it’s that our legal system brands a productive company a criminal and dares to call it justice.
Google hasn’t robbed anyone. Instead, it creates enormous value. Google’s search engine turned internet chaos into instant knowledge and built one of the world’s most-admired business models on top. Google’s earned billions come from advertisers reaching for high-intent users who buy precisely targeted products and services. As disgruntled as Google’s wannabe competitors may be, there was no search market to “rob” before Google brought it into reality.
The judge doesn’t contest these undeniable facts. Mehta in his August 2024 decision repeatedly praises Google’s productivity and virtues: “It has long been the best search engine”; “it has continued to innovate in search”; and “partners value its quality, and they continue to select Google as the default because its search engine provides the best bet for monetizing queries.”4
The judge also admitted that Google’s payment for default preload is ordinarily a productive, win-win practice. “[I]n the hands of a smaller market participant it might be considered harmless, or even honestly industrial,” Mehta said, referencing a prior court decision.
But for Google, as for countless other highly successful and dominant businesses before it, the standards of justice suddenly shift. In the name of “fair competition,” antitrust laws turn legitimate, mutually beneficial contracts into a crime. Assess for yourself the fairness of rules that allow judges to penalize the winner of a race for sprinting too fast.
This is why the court would not impose a harsh sentence: it knew doing so could cripple the industry. Unlike punishing a real criminal, restricting Google’s payments “almost certainly will impose,” in Judge Mehta’s words, “substantial — in some cases, crippling — downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers.”5
So, the court ruled that Google can continue paying for default status, but cannot ask device makers not to preload or promote rivals. A “technical committee” of overseers will monitor Google’s compliance with a data-sharing mandate for six years.
“The court wants it both ways,” Jay Ezrielev at Barron’s observed: “For the country to reap the benefits of Google’s large payments for default status and, at the same time, to punish Google for achieving success because of those very payments.”6
This is beyond outrageous. In moral terms, the verdict is saying this: “Google, we begrudgingly acknowledge you are brilliant, innovative, indispensible. Everyone benefits from your work. But nevertheless, we resent your success and want to remind you who’s boss. Keep producing, but never forget you’re a criminal.”
The long-term effects of our justice system’s branding Google a criminal remain to be seen.
When the DOJ persecuted Microsoft two decades ago, the grueling trial deflated the spirit of Microsoft: Bill Gates himself. One interviewer noted that after the antitrust ordeal Gates seemed “flaccid, lifeless . . . . The DOJ was demonizing him. The press hated him. His rivals were conspiring to take him down. The political establishment was ganging up on him. His enemies were legion; his defenders, mute.”7 Gates stepped down as CEO as the decade-long fight sapped the joy of work, and arguably dragged the company’s swagger down with him. The company was bleeding talent, and “Microsoft was no longer the place to be.” It took years for it to recover.
Google faced demonization of a lesser degree and likely will escape Microsoft’s fate. But even if one brilliant prospective employee refuses to work for a “criminal” company, or Google halts an innovative research project, fearing success will anger envious competitors and antitrust regulators, it is a price it shouldn’t have to pay.
Google already fights multiple antitrust battles (and resulting private litigation), from Epic Games’ attacking Google’s Android app-distribution to the DOJ’s attempt to dismantle its online advertisement arm.8,9,10 Google’s being declared an illegal monopolist, even if accompanied with a lenient sentence, only emboldens Google’s enemies.
One can sigh in relief that one of the greatest value creators in history was spared an unjustified breakup this time. But Google’s dodging one bullet only to live under constant fire should never be considered a victory, not in America, not if we value our nation’s freedom and entrepreneurial spirit.d products and services. As disgruntled as Google’s wannabe competitors may be, there was no search market to “rob” before Google brought it into reality.
United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C.), Judge Mehta’s Ruling, Doc. 1033 (August 5, 2024).
United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C.), Memorandum Opinion, Doc. 1461 (December 5, 2025).
United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C.), Judge Mehta’s Ruling, Doc. 1033, 199 (August 5, 2024).
United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C.), Memorandum Opinion, Doc. 1461, 4 (December 5, 2025).
Jay Ezrielev, “Google’s Antitrust Remedy Raises New Questions.” Barron’s, September 22, 2025.
John Heilemann, “The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth,” Wired, November 1, 2000.
John Hamill, Brian Boyle, Greg Casas, Becky Caruso, Thomas Corrigan, “New York Federal Court Applies Broad Preclusive Effect and Adopts DOJ’s Google Ad Tech Ruling.” DLA Piper, November 5, 2025.
Robertas Bakula, “Epic Games’ Victory Could Dismantle the Google Play Store,” New Ideal, November 6, 2025.
Jody Godoy, “Judge in Google ad tech case seeks quick fix for web giant’s monopolies,” Reuters, November 21, 2025.
Image Credit: Emin Sansar /Anadolu Agency / via Getty Images
 | A guest post by
|