Hand touching and signing a tablet.

DISPUTE RESOLTUION AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

US Attorney General Merrick Garland files Anti-Trust Suit against Google

Google in the Line of Fire; US Attorney General Merrick Garland files Anti-Trust Suit against Google. 24.01.2023 claiming £21.6bn.

The anti-trust lawsuit, filed by US Attorney General Merrick Garland against Google, can come as little surprise to Google; others in the ‘Big Tech Tent’ should take careful note.

In October 2020 the House Judicial Sub Committee published its report on the ‘Big Four’ and, frankly, it was damning. The findings were summarised by Val Demings (Democrat- Florida) as follows:

“Our investigation revealed an alarming pattern of business practices that degrade competition and stifle innovation,”

and continued:

“Competition must reward the best idea, not the biggest corporate account. We will take steps necessary to hold rulebreakers accountable.”

Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Google were singled out by name for their conduct. However, despite what many regarded in the House’s report as a ‘Final Warning’, no heed was taken. And so, yesterday, 24.01.2023, the US Justice Department and eight States filed suit.
Mr Garland stated:

“For 15 years, Google has pursued a course of anticompetitive conduct that has allowed it to halt the rise of rival technologies, manipulate auction mechanics, to insulate itself from competition, and force advertisers and publishers to use its tools”.

The suit is some 140 pages and is filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.

In short, the tech giant is accused of buying up competitors (see for example Google’s 2017 purchase of Doubleclick). It is also accused of forcing advertisers using its platform to pay 30% to Google of each dollar going from advertisers to website publishers. The result was higher prices to consumers.

In its initial comments on the suit, Google has stated that it does not hold a monopoly in the relevant market. Respectfully, this is disingenuous. Google’s position is quite true, but insofar as it suggests that a monopoly position is required under US anti-trust law and it further implies that Google does not hold a dominant position.

In fact, Google accounts for 29% of the online advertising market, Meta controls 20% and Amazon brings up the rear with 11% (SOURCE: INSIDER INTELLIGENCE).

The US DoJ is claiming some £21.6bn in fines and penalties.

On an initial reading of the case, it seems to this writer that the case against Google has merit.

For more information about anti-trust lawsuits, or if you have any questions about any of the issues covered in this update, please contact Dispute Resolution Partner Jonathan Compton.

Stay connected, sign up for updates

Stay connected

Recent articles

Insights

Defective advice, deficient security: professional negligence in the lending sector

In this article we highlight the areas from which professional negligence claims most frequently arise, and some key considerations for protecting your position.

02/06/2026

Insights

Aabar v Glencore: Latest development on legal advice privilege and intra-client communication

Legal advice privilege (“LAP”) was understood to protect only confidential communications passing directly between a lawyer and client for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.

11/05/2026

Insights

Theft or Conversion? A tale of two tokens

Almost 7 years on from the UK Jurisdiction Task Force’s seminal report on the law of property relating to purely digital assets and 3 years on from the Law Commission’s own 2023 report on the subject.

21/04/2026

Insights

Do limitation periods apply to unfair prejudice petitions?

In the long-awaited case of Zedra, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and confirmed that limitation periods do not apply to unfair prejudice petitions.

27/02/2026

DISCLAIMER:

THIS INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES AND IS NOT INTENDED TO AMOUNT TO LEGAL ADVICE ON WHICH RELIANCE SHOULD BE PLACED. WE, DMH STALLARD LLP, DISCLAIM ALL LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ARISING FROM ANY RELIANCE PLACED ON THIS INFORMATION. ANY RELIANCE ON THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY AT YOUR RISK. The provision of this information does not create a business or professional services relationship. This information is not exhaustive and does not attempt to address every issue relevant to a particular situation. If you require advice on a specific legal issue, please contact a lawyer listed on our website, dmhstallard.com, or send an email to [email protected].