WashingtonS High-Stakes Tech Showdown: FTC Targets Google and Meta

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is intensifying its scrutiny of tech giants,with Google and Meta (formerly Facebook) currently facing importent antitrust challenges in Washington. These legal battles could reshape the digital landscape, possibly leading to the forced divestiture of key assets.

Google’s Chrome Under Threat: A Multi-Billion Dollar Decision

following Meta’s trial which commenced on April 14, 2025, Google is now defending itself against accusations of abusing its market dominance. At the heart of the case is the potential dismantling of its Chrome browser, an asset estimated to be worth between $15 and $20 billion, according to Bloomberg analysis.The stakes are incredibly high for the Mountain view-based company.

Meta’s Acquisitions in the Crosshairs: Instagram and WhatsApp Under Scrutiny

The FTC argues that Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion and WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion should never have been permitted. The agency is now pushing for these subsidiaries to be separated from Meta, potentially reversing years of integration and strategic alignment.

Google’s dominance in Search: Accusations of Anti-competitive Practices

Google is accused of leveraging its dominant position in the online search market to solidify a near-monopoly. Critics point to the company’s control of nearly 90% of the american market, allegedly achieved by hindering competitors such as DuckDuckGo and Microsoft’s Bing.This dominance has fueled concerns about stifled innovation and reduced consumer choice.

Estimates suggest Google spends up to $26 billion annually on deals to ensure its search engine is the default option on platforms like Firefox, Safari, and Android devices. This strategy allows Google to amass vast amounts of user data, further refining its product and potentially disadvantaging rivals.

expert Analysis: Potential Consequences of Dismantling Tech Giants

Frédéric Marty, a research manager at the CNRS and former member of the College of Competition Authority, cautions against the potential downsides of dismantling Google. He argues that such “structural remedies” could negatively impact consumers and the overall competitiveness of the American economy.

Inevitably, if we dismantle, there will be loss of performance.
Frédéric Marty, CNRS

Marty emphasizes that dismantling should primarily serve as a deterrent.Google is expected to appeal any adverse court decision, prolonging the legal battle. While Judge Amit Mehta has already found Google guilty of anti-competitive practices,the final verdict remains uncertain,with the trial potentially extending over several weeks.

But by what we arrive at the end of the case, a lot of time will spend. Becuase it’s a game that will be very long.
Frédéric Marty, CNRS

Historical Context: Lessons from Past Antitrust Cases

the use of structural remedies in antitrust cases is rare. In the 1990s, Microsoft faced a similar threat but ultimately avoided dismantling after appealing the initial decision. The case resulted in “behavioral remedies,” requiring Microsoft to modify its market conduct. The last major company to be dismantled in the United States for antitrust violations was AT&T in the early 1980s.

Google’s Defense: Consumer Choice and Market Justification

Google maintains that its market position is a result of consumer choice, not anti-competitive behavior. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Vice President in charge of regulatory cases, stated in a December 2024 blog post that dismantling Google “would prejudice American consumers.”

People do not use Google because they are forced to. Because they want it.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google

Contradictions and Skepticism: The apple Deal and Market Dominance

Frédéric Marty challenges Google’s argument by pointing to its contract with Apple, which ensures Google’s default search engine status on Safari. He questions why Google needs to pay for this placement if its search engine is truly the best.

If I am the best, the Apple user will download Google Search himself.So paying the problem.
Frédéric Marty, CNRS

Marty suggests that judges are likely to view such arguments with skepticism, highlighting a potential disconnect between Google’s perception of its market position and the reality of its competitive practices.

The Ongoing Case: A Legacy of Antitrust Enforcement

The current antitrust case against Google began in 2020 under the Trump management and has continued under President Biden. Key figures include Jonathan Kanter, Deputy Prosecutor in charge of the antitrust division of the United States Ministry of justice, and Gail Slater, appointed by Trump in December 2024. Slater’s background as a former FTC advisor and her association with figures like JD Vance, a vocal advocate for dismantling Google, suggest a continued commitment to a hard-line approach.

It feels like there is a relative continuity of the American administration.
Frédéric Marty, CNRS

Political Influence and Institutional Independence

Despite the presence of tech leaders at Donald Trump’s inauguration, experts like Thierry Pénard, an economist at CNRS specializing in competition law, emphasize the independence of institutions like the FTC and DOJ.However, he acknowledges that these bodies remain influenced by the administration in power, suggesting that attempts by tech companies to align with political forces may be a factor in these ongoing legal battles.