On Friday, Google and the U.S. Justice Department were in court over allegations that the tech giant unlawfully maintained a monopoly in search advertising. The proceedings, held before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., mark a critical moment in one of the most significant antitrust trials in recent history.

During the closing arguments, the focus centered on whether platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram offer viable advertising alternatives to Google, challenging its dominance in the market. Judge Mehta underscored the importance of "platform substitutability" for advertisers, a key issue he must decide as he prepares to make a ruling in the coming months.

The U.S. government, represented by lawyer David Dahlquist, argued that Google's substantial advertising revenues, which account for about three-quarters of its total income, are primarily driven by its monopolistic control over the market. Dahlquist pointed out that Google’s lack of market pressure allows it to increase prices or neglect product improvement without fear of losing revenue—behavior he attributed to a monopolistic entity.

Countering the accusations, Google’s attorney, John Schmidtlein, argued that Google's share of U.S. digital advertising revenue has been decreasing, citing the growing advertising prowess of rivals like TikTok, Meta’s platforms, and Amazon. Schmidtlein emphasized that these platforms constrain Google's actions because they capture overlapping audiences, offering advertisers viable alternatives for their advertising dollars. He also highlighted Google's ongoing efforts to innovate its search advertising products, questioning why a monopolist would continue to improve its offerings if it faced no real competition.

The government’s allegation that Google intentionally destroyed internal documents relevant to the case was a significant development in the trial. The Justice Department requested Judge Mehta to presume that deleted chats contained content unfavorable to Google. In response, Google defended its data preservation practices as reasonable and urged the court not to impose sanctions.

This case, initiated during the Trump administration, is the first among several aimed at curtailing the market power of leading technology companies. It sets a precedent for subsequent actions against other tech giants like Meta, Amazon, and Apple, all of which face similar scrutiny under both the Trump and Biden administrations’ antitrust efforts.

The verdict of this trial may significantly influence the technology industry, potentially altering the operational strategies of leading tech firms in digital advertising. A decision against Google could not only disrupt its business framework but also establish a regulatory benchmark with wide-reaching effects across the sector.