ChatGPT & AI News

Google Faces New Antitrust Filing Over AI Overview Monopoly Concerns

January 27, 2026

Published: January 2026 | aiseojournal.net

Table of Contents

Federal Court Rules Google Is a Monopolist—Then AI Changed Everything

In August 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta delivered one of the most significant antitrust rulings in decades: “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” The tech giant was found guilty of illegally maintaining its stranglehold on online search through exclusive contracts worth $20 billion annually to companies like Apple.

But here’s where it gets interesting: by the time Judge Mehta issued his remedies decision in September 2025, artificial intelligence had completely upended the case. The rise of ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and Google’s own AI Overviews transformed the legal landscape so dramatically that the judge admitted “the growth of generative AI has changed the course of the case.”

Now, as Google faces 89.89% market dominance in traditional search (August 2025) and publishers file new EU antitrust complaints (June 2025) specifically targeting AI Overviews for destroying their traffic, the question has evolved from “Is Google a search monopoly?” to “Can Google use its search monopoly to dominate AI?”

From Judge Mehta’s ruling:

“Google is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future… the emergence of generative AI as a nascent competitor threat to Google’s dominance played a key role in fashioning antitrust remedies.”

The Complete Timeline

October 2020: The Case Begins

U.S. Department of Justice + 11 state attorneys general file antitrust lawsuit alleging Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act through exclusive search distribution contracts.

The core allegation: Google paid billions annually (including $20 billion to Apple in 2022 alone) to be the default search engine on browsers and devices, foreclosing competitors.

December 2020: States Join

38 additional states file their own suit, which is consolidated with the DOJ case.

September-November 2023: Trial

10-week trial presents evidence of Google’s market dominance:

89-90% desktop search market share
95% smartphone search market share
Exclusive contracts with Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, wireless carriers

August 5, 2024: Monopoly Ruling

Judge Mehta rules Google is an illegal monopolist in two markets:

General search services
Search text advertising

Key finding: Google’s exclusive contracts produced “significant foreclosure of the relevant markets, denial of scale to rivals, and reductions in rivals’ incentives to invest and innovate.”

The verdict: Google has monopoly power based on dominant market share and significant entry barriers.

October 2024: DOJ Proposes Breakup

Department of Justice files proposed remedies, including:

Potential divestiture of Chrome browser
Possible Android operating system spin-off
Ban on exclusive default search contracts
Mandatory data sharing with competitors

From DOJ filing:

“The remedies will prevent and restrain recurrence of the same offense of illegal monopoly maintenance going forward.”

April 17, 2025: Ad Tech Monopoly Ruling

Separate case in Virginia District Court: Judge rules Google violated antitrust laws in digital advertising by establishing monopoly through anticompetitive practices.

Key acquisitions cited:

DoubleClick
Invite Media
AdMeld

Verdict: Google maintained monopoly by connecting its adtech tools and exchange services.

June 30, 2025: EU Publishers File AI Overview Complaint

Independent Publishers Alliance + Movement for an Open Web + Foxglove Legal file EU antitrust complaint specifically targeting Google AI Overviews.

The allegation: Google’s promotion of AI-generated answers at the top of search results “directly harms the traffic and revenue of original content.”

From Reuters report:

“The complaint calls for an interim measure to avoid irreparable harm” to publishers whose content is used to generate AI answers without proper compensation or traffic.

Significance: This marks the first major antitrust action specifically focused on AI search features rather than traditional search.

September 2, 2025: Remedies Decision

Judge Mehta rejects Chrome divestiture but imposes behavioral remedies:

✓ Ban on exclusive contracts for search distribution
✓ Prohibition on AI product bundling (Gemini, successors)
✓ Data sharing requirements with competitors (including AI companies)
✓ “Google shall not condition” rule preventing tying products together
✓ 6-year compliance framework with monitoring

Critically rejected: Structural relief (breaking up Google)

Why? The court cited AI competition as evidence that behavioral remedies might be sufficient.

From the ruling:

“The court treats GenAI products like Search wherever they function in a similar fashion so that Google cannot use its monopoly power in search to box out GenAI challengers.”

December 5, 2025: Final Remedies Judgment

Judge Mehta issues refined final judgment after parties disputed the September ruling’s interpretation.

Key clarifications:

Covers Gemini and all Google GenAI products
Prevents using search monopoly to advantage AI products
Designed to “stop Google from simply reusing its old tactics in the dynamic AI market”

January 2026: Appeals Expected

Current status: Both Google and DOJ expected to appeal to Supreme Court, with final resolution projected for 2027-2028.

The AI Factor: How ChatGPT Changed the Case

The Market Fragmentation

From Brookings Institution analysis:

“The arrival of AI has fractured online search into at least three identifiable markets.”

Market 1: Traditional Search

User enters query → receives list of websites
Google: 89.89% global market share (August 2025)
Bing: 3.92% (second place)
Market stable over 12 months

Market 2: AI Search

Query returns summarized answer from top links
Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT Search, Perplexity, Bing Copilot
Gemini + ChatGPT: 78% of AI search traffic (December 2024)
OpenAI’s filing: AI search volume “slightly exceeded” Google’s overviews

Market 3: GenAI Conversational

Dialogue-based tools: ChatGPT, Claude, Google Astra
Growing 165x faster than organic search (June 2025 study)
Still <1% of total website traffic (but exploding)

The Scale Comparison

From Brookings:

“Google search grew by over 20% in 2024, handling over 5 trillion searches—approximately 14 billion per day—a total that is 373 times bigger than ChatGPT search.”

Current reality:

Google: 5+ trillion searches annually (14 billion/day)
ChatGPT: ~13.4 billion searches annually (based on 373x difference)

Judge Mehta’s AI references (September 2025 ruling):

“AI” and “artificial intelligence”: 116 mentions
“Generative AI”/”GenAI”: 220 mentions
“Large language models”/”LLM”: 82 mentions
“ChatGPT”: 28 mentions
“OpenAI”: 30 mentions
“Perplexity”: 24 mentions
“Anthropic”: 6 mentions

By contrast: His August 2024 monopoly ruling barely mentioned AI.

Why AI Changed the Remedies

Judge Mehta’s reasoning:

GenAI is a “disruptive force” that could challenge Google’s monopoly
Behavioral remedies might suffice if AI competition develops
Structural breakup could harm innovation in emerging AI market
U.S. technological leadership considerations in global AI race

From NPR analysis:

“By the time the judge ruled on punishments for the company this month, the future of artificial intelligence was front and center.”

The strategic calculation: Don’t break up Google when AI might organically erode its dominance—but ensure Google can’t leverage search monopoly to capture AI market.

The Publisher Complaint: AI Overviews Killing Traffic

The EU Filing

June 30, 2025: Independent Publishers Alliance files EU antitrust complaint with specific focus on AI Overviews.

Co-signatories:

Movement for an Open Web
Foxglove Legal Community Interest Company

The core argument: Google uses its search monopoly to promote its own AI-generated content at the expense of original publishers.

How AI Overviews Work

User experience:

User searches Google
AI Overview appears at top of results (above organic links)
Answer synthesizes information from multiple sources
User gets answer without clicking publisher sites
Publishers lose traffic and revenue

From the complaint:

“Google’s promotion of AI overviews directly harms the traffic and revenue of original content.”

The Zero-Click Problem

Industry data: More searches ending without clicks as AI answers proliferate.

Publisher impact:

Reduced referral traffic from Google
Lost advertising revenue (fewer pageviews)
Content used without compensation (to train/generate AI answers)
Competitive disadvantage (Google uses their content against them)

The interim measure request: Publishers want immediate action to prevent “irreparable harm” while complaint is investigated.

Key Remedies and Their AI Implications

1. Ban on Exclusive Contracts

What it means: Google can no longer pay Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, or carriers to be the exclusive default search engine.

AI impact: Gemini (Google’s AI) cannot be bundled or preferenced through same exclusive deals.

Result: Competitors like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude can compete for default placement.

2. Data Sharing Requirements

What Google must share:

Search query data
Click patterns
User behavior signals

Who gets access: Competitors, including AI companies

Limitation: Excludes advertising and advertiser-level data (reserved for separate ad-tech case)

AI significance: AI companies can train on Google’s search data to improve their models.

3. The “Shall Not Condition” Rule

Prohibition: Google cannot make access, payments, or favorable terms for one product contingent on using another Google product.

Examples prevented:

Can’t require Android OEMs to preinstall Gemini to get Google Play
Can’t bundle Google Search with Gemini access
Can’t preference Gemini in Chrome unless user chooses

From Winston & Strawn analysis:

“The court treats GenAI products like Search wherever they function in a similar fashion so that Google cannot use its monopoly power in search to box out GenAI challengers.”

4. Six-Year Compliance Framework

Duration: Remedies in effect through 2031

Monitoring: Court-appointed technical committee

Enforcement: Violations can trigger additional penalties or structural relief

Why 6 years? Time for AI market to mature and competition to develop.

Industry Reactions and Strategic Implications

DOJ: Disappointed But Committed

From Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Division:

“The government will continue to review the opinion to consider next steps regarding seeking additional relief.”

Translation: DOJ may appeal, seeking harsher remedies including potential Chrome divestiture.

Google: Planning Appeal

Official stance: Will appeal both liability ruling and remedies to Supreme Court.

From Google legal team:

“This case will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court, probably in the 2027, 2028 timeframe, which is seven or eight years after it was filed—and a millennium in terms of innovation and development.”

Strategy: Delay, arguing AI market evolution makes remedies obsolete.

Tech Policy Experts: Mixed Reviews

Critics argue: Remedies are too weak to prevent Google from dominating AI.

Supporters argue: Structural breakup would harm U.S. AI competitiveness globally.

From Brookings analysis:

“The court’s careful approach may push Congress to make broader regulatory changes. The decision highlights how old antitrust policies might be inadequate for the modern AI era.”

Congress: Legislation Threatened

Several Members of Congress announced plans to pursue new tech regulation if court remedies prove insufficient.

Possible legislation:

American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA) reintroduction
Ending Platform Monopolies Act revival
New AI-specific competition legislation

What This Means for SEO and Publishers

Traffic Impact

Reality: AI Overviews and ChatGPT search reduce organic click-through rates.

Strategy adjustments needed:

Optimize for AI citations (become the source AI quotes)
Focus on content AI can’t replicate (original reporting, analysis, expertise)
Diversify traffic sources (don’t depend solely on Google)

The Monitoring Period

Next 6 years will determine:

How much traffic AI search actually captures
Whether Google AI Overviews comply with remedies
If competitors gain meaningful market share
Whether publishers’ EU complaint succeeds

Opportunity Window

For competitors: Data sharing requirements + no exclusive contracts = best chance in 20 years to challenge Google.

For publishers: EU complaint creates potential leverage for compensation or traffic protection.

For AI companies: Access to Google’s data + no bundling restrictions = ability to compete on merit.

FAQs

Q: Will Google be broken up?

A: Not currently. Judge Mehta rejected structural relief (Chrome/Android divestiture) but DOJ may appeal. Final decision likely won’t come until 2027-2028 after Supreme Court review.

Q: How does this affect AI Overviews?

A: They’re specifically covered by remedies. Google cannot use search monopoly to advantage Gemini or AI Overview features. Must compete fairly with ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude.

Q: Will publishers get compensation for AI use of their content?

A: Not yet. The EU complaint is pending investigation. U.S. remedies don’t address publisher compensation—only competition issues.

Q: When will these changes take effect?

A: Google is expected to appeal, delaying implementation. If remedies survive appeals, 6-year compliance period begins. Realistically, meaningful changes unlikely before 2027-2028.

Q: Does this help smaller search engines?

A: Potentially. No more exclusive contracts + data sharing requirements give Bing, DuckDuckGo, and AI search tools a fighting chance. But Google still has brand dominance and 20+ years of infrastructure.

The Bottom Line

Google won the battle but may lose the war. While the court rejected a Chrome breakup, it specifically prevents Google from leveraging its search monopoly into AI dominance—precisely the concern that will define the next decade of tech competition.

The dual threat: