Google CEO Sundar Pichai took the stand on April 30 in the remedies phase of the landmark U.S. antitrust case against the tech giant’s search engine practices. The trial, a continuation of a 2023 federal ruling that found Google held an illegal monopoly in the search market, is now centered around how to correct that monopoly. Pichai’s testimony offered a window into how Google views the potential remedies and what’s at stake for the company.
One of the most striking moments came when Pichai warned that the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed remedies could stifle Google’s ability to innovate. “It’s not clear to me how we’d have any value for our IP if we had to share our IP at marginal cost,” he said, referring to the DOJ’s recommendation that Google be required to license its search index and data to competitors. This proposal, according to Google, would devalue years of proprietary investment.
Pichai, who led the creation of Google Chrome before becoming CEO, also pushed back on the DOJ’s call for the divestiture of the popular web browser. The government argues that Chrome gives Google an unfair advantage by steering users toward its own search engine by default. Pichai maintained that Chrome was designed for performance and user security, not to limit competition.
Another key moment came as Pichai underscored that Google’s market dominance is not the result of anti-competitive behavior but of consumer preference and sustained innovation. “People choose Google because it’s helpful,” he noted, suggesting that users gravitate toward the search engine on merit rather than manipulation.
Google’s legal team echoed these sentiments, arguing that the DOJ’s proposals would unfairly “prop up competitors” at Google’s expense.
As Judge Amit Mehta considers arguments from both sides, the outcome could reshape not just Google’s future, but the structure of the internet itself. A ruling in favor of the DOJ’s remedies would mark one of the most aggressive regulatory actions against a tech company in U.S. history.
The case remains a defining test of how modern antitrust law applies to digital platforms that have become essential to everyday life.
