In a landmark antitrust case that could reshape the power dynamics of the tech industry, Google has called a dozen witnesses over the past two and a half weeks to defend itself against claims by the Justice Department and a group of state attorneys general that it has illegally maintained a search and advertising monopoly. The trial, titled U.S. et al. v. Google, is being presided over by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and a verdict is expected next year after both sides summarize their cases in writing and deliver closing arguments.

Google's main defense has revolved around justifying its actions and showcasing how they have benefited consumers and competition. One of their arguments is that the payments made to Apple and other tech platforms to secure their position as the default search engine on devices were sound business decisions. Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO, testified that there was value in being the default search engine and that the agreements with other companies were justified. Google paid $26.3 billion in 2021 for its search engine to be the default selection on mobile and desktop browsers, with the majority going to Apple. Pichai stated that the search engine deal with Apple was repeatedly renewed because it was mutually beneficial and led to an increase in search usage and revenue for both companies.

Google's lawyers also sought to refute the notion that other search engines were too small to compete for default status on browsers. They argued that rivals had won contracts in the past but failed to retain them due to the poor quality of their products. An example cited was Mozilla's decision in 2014 to select Yahoo as the default search engine for its Firefox browser, which resulted in an unpopular choice and a negative user experience. Mozilla eventually returned to Google in 2017.

The government accused Google of stifling meaningful competition by holding over 90 percent market share in search. However, Google's lawyers argued that its competition extended beyond search and included platforms like TikTok and Amazon, where consumers also seek information online.

Another aspect of Google's defense focused on its investments in search and how they have brought benefits to consumers and fostered competition. Google emphasized the billions of dollars it spends on research and development each year and the large team of engineers and product managers dedicated to its search engine. They argued that their rivals had not made similar investments. Google also claimed to have set the pace for tech advancements, citing frequent updates to its Chrome browser and the introduction of Android features that forced Apple to respond with more apps and smartphone features.

Justice Department lawyers, during cross-examinations, highlighted instances where they believed Google could have brought more innovation to users but chose not to in order to protect its monopoly. They pointed to Google's decision against building an incognito search engine that would have maintained user privacy but potentially resulted in significant revenue loss. The government also raised concerns about Google's delay in releasing generative artificial intelligence technology, suggesting that the company only acted when faced with competitive pressure.

The government additionally accused Google of using its power in search and ads to raise ad prices during revenue downturns. However, Google's employees testified that the company balanced its pursuit of revenue with ensuring high-quality ads for users.

Lastly, Google argued that its actions have been competitive overall and not anticompetitive. The company highlighted its entry into various markets, such as search, browsers, and mobile operating systems, as instances where it fostered competition against dominant players like Yahoo, Microsoft, and Apple.

The verdict in this high-stakes case will have far-reaching implications for the tech industry and could potentially reshape the concentration of power within it.