{"id":39774,"date":"2026-01-05T05:14:04","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T05:14:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/financialrush.com\/?p=39774"},"modified":"2026-01-05T05:14:04","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T05:14:04","slug":"the-us-is-losing-its-battle-to-break-up-big-tech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/financialrush.com\/?p=39774","title":{"rendered":"The US is losing its battle to break up Big Tech"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n<\/p>\n

\n

Washington\u2019s effort to split up Big Tech groups is faltering after setbacks in several big monopoly cases that cast doubt on the government\u2019s strategy to rein in some of the world\u2019s biggest companies.<\/p>\n

Federal enforcers have over the past year struggled to convince judges to order tech groups, including Google and Meta, to spin off large parts of their businesses, such as the Chrome browser and the social media platform Instagram. <\/p>\n

This drive to break up some of the largest US companies, which began during the first Trump administration and expanded under Joe Biden, marked the biggest challenge in decades to the tech industry\u2019s alleged anti-competitive behaviour. <\/p>\n

Prosecutors have won some landmark rulings that tech companies maintained illegal monopolies. But judges have been reluctant to reach for the strictest remedies and carve up businesses or unwind acquisitions, often many years after the fact. <\/p>\n

With monopoly cases against Apple and Amazon pending, these decisions have called into question the government\u2019s approach to taming the power of these tech giants.<\/p>\n

\u201cI wish courts had been more decisive,\u201d said Jonathan Kanter, who as former head of the antitrust division in the Department of Justice was a top competition enforcer under Joe Biden. <\/p>\n

He said the rulings suggested the US had been too slow to act \u201cin real time\u201d as tech companies hoovered up competitors and built dominance in their markets. \u201cThere\u2019s an important lesson here, which is not to let the monopolies form or maintain themselves illegally in the first place,\u201d Kanter added. <\/p>\n

The final outcomes of these tech monopoly cases may still be years away as lengthy appeals are expected to unfold. Top antitrust officials appointed by Trump have remained committed to these legal challenges.<\/p>\n

But last year\u2019s setbacks create a new opening for tech bosses such as Mark Zuckerberg, who have courted the Trump administration, to step up their lobbying for a retreat from aggressive antitrust enforcement. <\/p>\n

The speed of technological change \u2014 particularly in AI \u2014 has loomed large over rulings that have favoured Big Tech<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fast-changing nature of these markets \u2014 which is especially the case given recent improvements in artificial intelligence \u2014 raises hurdles\u201d for antitrust watchdogs, said Michael Carrier, professor at Rutgers Law School, who said the government had faced an \u201cuphill climb\u201d. <\/p>\n

<\/picture>
Google CEO Sundar Pichai. In two cases against the company, the US has won rulings that its power in internet search and advertising amounted to illegal monopolies <\/span> \u00a9 Drew Angerer\/Getty Images<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In one case against Google, Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August that the company had spent billions of dollars on exclusive deals to maintain an illegal monopoly in internet search. <\/p>\n

But he handed the company a big win in September when he declined to order a divestiture<\/a> of Chrome or its Android operating system, as requested by the DoJ. <\/p>\n

Mehta argued the threat to Google\u2019s roughly $200bn-a-year search business posed by AI chatbots was crucial to his decision to impose softer remedies. \u201cThe emergence of [generative AI] changed the course of this case,\u201d he wrote in his decision.<\/p>\n

James Boasberg, the judge presiding over the Federal Trade Commission<\/a>\u2019s case against Meta, also noted that the \u201cmassive leap in AI\u201d had drastically changed social media since the social media group acquired Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014 \u2014 deals the regulator sought to unwind. <\/p>\n

He accepted Meta\u2019s argument that it faced fierce competition from TikTok, which the judge said had \u201cspread furiously\u201d since its arrival in the US in 2018. Boasberg in November ruled that Meta does not hold an illegal monopoly<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Courts are also showing caution around the complexity of so-called structural remedies, such as breaking up multitrillion-dollar companies, preferring to order companies to change their behaviour.<\/p>\n

Mehta argued that judges \u201cmust approach the task of crafting remedies with a healthy dose of humility\u201d.\u00a0Citing a Supreme Court case, he wrote: \u201cCourts reviewing complex business arrangements should\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009be wary about invitations to \u2018set sail on a sea of doubt\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Leonie Brinkema, who is overseeing the separate Google case involving advertising, ruled in April that the company \u201cwilfully\u201d monopolised<\/a> parts of the digital ads market.<\/p>\n

But in a final hearing in November, she expressed concern about prosecutors\u2019 request to split up Google\u2019s advertising business and whether such an order would be readily enforceable. <\/p>\n

Brinkema noted that a potential buyer for Google\u2019s ad exchange had not been identified, saying she was \u201cconcerned\u201d that a potential divestiture was at a \u201cfairly abstract level\u201d. The \u201ccourt has to be far more down to earth and concrete\u201d, Brinkema added. She is expected to hand down a decision this year.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Bill Kovacic, former chair of the FTC, argued that government lawyers had failed to \u201cfully appreciate\u201d how modern jurisprudence \u201cinstils caution in federal judges\u201d. <\/p>\n

He said more could have been done to assuage their anxiety, including presenting more \u201cconcrete details\u201d about asset sales.<\/p>\n

The FTC and DoJ did not respond to requests for comment. <\/p>\n

Gail Slater, the Donald Trump-appointed head of the DoJ\u2019s antitrust unit, after Mehta\u2019s ruling said she was weighing options and \u201cthinking through whether the ordered relief goes far enough\u201d. <\/p>\n

After the Meta decision, the FTC said it was \u201cdeeply disappointed\u201d and was \u201creviewing all our options\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"Mark<\/picture>
A federal judge ruled in November that Mark Zuckerberg\u2019s Meta did not hold an illegal monopoly<\/span> \u00a9 Bloomberg<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Google search and Meta cases, both filed in the first Trump administration, ushered in a new era of antitrust enforcement after decades in which agencies did not seek such sweeping action against monopolies in Big Tech \u2014 something last attempted on a similar scale against Microsoft with a 1998 DoJ complaint. <\/p>\n

Biden-era competition enforcers, including Kanter and former FTC commissioner Lina Khan, turbocharged monopoly lawsuits, expanding to sectors beyond tech and bringing the Google advertising case as well as suits claiming that Amazon had hurt its customers, rivals and sellers and that Apple monopolised smartphone markets. <\/p>\n

Amazon and Apple, which face trials in 2027, have said the lawsuits are factually and legally flawed.<\/p>\n

The tech rulings of 2025 have shown how enforcement delays can undermine efforts to combat market dominance.<\/p>\n

Monopoly cases brought in the past four years \u201cshould have been brought 10 years earlier. The remedies would have been quite straightforward and achievable,\u201d Kanter said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe decisions to refrain from bringing enforcement actions did not age well,\u201d he added, since it meant \u201cthe monopolies calcified\u201d. <\/p>\n

\"Jonathan<\/picture>
Former FTC chair says the important lesson from the rulings is \u2018not to let the monopolies form or maintain themselves illegally in the first place\u2019<\/span> \u00a9 Jason Andrew\/Bloomberg<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In his opinion, Boasberg appeared to agree, stressing that the landscape had \u201cchanged markedly\u201d since the FTC sued Meta in 2020.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWhether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now. The court\u2019s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

These cases have also focused attention on how to regulate emerging technologies such as AI. <\/p>\n

Slater, in a September speech about AI, said that creating a level playing field through antitrust enforcement \u201cis always important, but it is crucial where the technology is still developing rapidly\u201d. <\/p>\n