Should the government breakup Google?

The Department of Justice (DOJ), emboldened by a 2024 ruling that Google illegally monopolized online search, is pushing for remedies that could reshape the tech landscape. Headlines scream of breakups, data-sharing mandates, and curbs on artificial intelligence development — an audacious gambit to dismantle one of America’s most iconic innovators. Yet, as John Tamny argues in a provocative RealClearMarkets piece, the case’s headlines betray its fragility, revealing a DOJ that is overreaching into uncharted territory. The question isn’t just whether Google should be broken up, but whether the government’s crusade risks hobbling a titan at a moment when global technological supremacy is at stake.

Tamny’s essay skewers the DOJ’s case with a contrarian’s glee. He points to a Bloomberg headline — “DOJ Urges Federal Judge To Break Google’s Search Grip” — and suggests its vagueness masks a lack of substance. “How interesting it would be to focus group the previous headline,” he writes, implying that public support for a breakup might crumble under scrutiny. The DOJ’s August 2024 victory, under Judge Amit Mehta, found that Google’s contracts with distributors like Apple and Mozilla — paying billions to secure default search status — stifled competition. But Tamny argues that the proposed remedies, from divesting Chrome to forcing data sharing, stray far from Mehta’s narrow ruling, venturing into what he calls “lawfare” against a company whose dominance stems from excellence, not malice.

The case for breaking up Google rests on a narrative of unchecked power. The DOJ, alongside eight states, contends that Google’s 90% share of U.S. search queries — bolstered by $26 billion in payments to maintain default status — creates an impenetrable moat. Critics argue that this stranglehold harms consumers by limiting choice and innovation. A 2023 piece in The New York Times noted that rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo struggle to gain traction, not because of inferior technology but because Google’s deals lock them out of prime real estate on browsers and smartphones. The DOJ’s remedy framework, filed in late 2024, envisions a world where Google’s grip is loosened: divestitures of Chrome or Android, bans on exclusive contracts, and mandatory data sharing to level the playing field. Proponents see this as a modern echo of the 1982 AT&T breakup, which spurred telecom innovation by dismantling a monopoly.

Beyond search, the DOJ’s ambitions extend to Google’s nascent AI efforts. With AI poised to redefine global power, regulators fear that Google’s vast data troves and computational resources could cement its dominance in this frontier. A 2024 RealClearMarkets piece warned that allowing Google to leverage its search monopoly into AI leadership risks creating a “super-monopoly” that could dictate information flows worldwide. The Biden-Harris administration, in its final months, framed the case as a defense of consumer welfare, arguing that Google’s practices inflate ad prices and degrade search quality by prioritizing paid results over organic ones. Posts on X from April 2025 reflect public sentiment, with some users cheering the DOJ’s push as a check on Big Tech’s arrogance.

Yet the case against a breakup is equally compelling, rooted in pragmatism and skepticism of government overreach. Google’s defenders, including Tamny, argue that its dominance reflects consumer preference, not coercion. Judge Mehta’s 2024 ruling acknowledged Google’s “unmatched quality.” He noted that Google’s contracts, while restrictive, were legal agreements with partners like Apple, who chose Google for its superior product. Critics warn that breaking up Google could fracture this ecosystem, degrading services like Chrome and Android that billions rely on. A forced divestiture of Android, for instance, might weaken its competition with Apple’s iOS, paradoxically reducing consumer choice.

The AI argument cuts both ways. While the DOJ fears Google’s AI ambitions, others view its $100 billion investment as vital to U.S. leadership in the face of China, where state-backed firms like Baidu face no such antitrust scrutiny. Kneecapping Google’s AI work could cede the field to Beijing, whose vision of AI prioritizes state control over innovation. Google itself, in an April 2025 pretrial brief, warned that a breakup would undermine national security by hampering AI-driven cybersecurity advancements. This resonates in a world where China’s tech giants operate with impunity, unburdened by domestic regulators. Tamny amplifies this, suggesting the DOJ’s push risks “gifting the AI race to China” by hobbling a key American player.

Consumer welfare, the cornerstone of U.S. antitrust law, complicates the DOJ case. Critics argue that Google’s free services — search, Maps, Gmail — deliver immense value, subsidized by ads that its dominance makes efficient. Forcing data sharing, as the DOJ proposes, could erode privacy, a point Tamny underscores by questioning why regulators would mandate exposing user data without consent.

The DOJ’s remedies also face practical hurdles. Judge Mehta, known for his measured rulings, may balk at proposals that exceed his 2024 findings, which focused narrowly on distribution contracts. The incoming Trump administration adds another layer of uncertainty. With Gail Slater, Trump’s DOJ antitrust nominee, set to take office, analysts predict a shift toward deregulation. Trump, a self-styled businessman, may view Google’s success as a virtue rather than a vice and push for remedies that preserve its global edge.

The broader context of U.S. antitrust policy sharpens the debate. A 2023 RealClearMarkets piece noted that American regulators often overlook global competitiveness, unlike their European counterparts, who utilize tools like the Digital Markets Act to regulate U.S. tech giants. Meanwhile, Google’s failed acquisitions, such as those of DoubleClick competitors that flopped, undermine claims of predatory monopolism.

As the trial unfolds, the stakes transcend Google itself. A breakup could set a precedent for other tech giants, such as Amazon, Apple, and Meta, which are already under scrutiny. Yet it risks signaling to the world that America punishes success, a message that could embolden rivals in Beijing and beyond. Tamny’s RealClearMarkets piece captures this tension, framing the DOJ’s case as a misadventure that “overreaches beyond reason.” For every argument that Google’s monopoly stifles innovation, there’s a counterpoint that its scale drives it, delivering tools that define modern life.

In a courtroom in Washington, Judge Mehta will soon decide Google’s fate. However, the real verdict may lie in the court of public opinion, where headlines shape perceptions as much as facts. Will Google emerge as a villain to be slain or a champion to be preserved? The answer depends on whether one sees its dominance as a threat to freedom or a testament to ingenuity. As Tamny might argue, the DOJ’s case, for all its bluster, may crumble under the weight of its ambitions, leaving Google to search on — flawed, formidable, and undeniably ours.