North America Antitrust Digest | June 2025

A quick look at the top headlines in Antitrust and Competition

1. Google Search Remedies Trial Ends; Awaiting Judge Decision

2. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Rinner Lays Out Policies on Remedies

3. Antitrust Under Trump 2.0: A Conservative Realignment Takes Hold

A breakdown of the latest news, moves and trends

Google Search Remedies Trial Ends; Awaiting Judge Decision

On May 30, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard final closing arguments in the trial on proposals to address Google's illegal monopoly in online search. Not only could the outcome of the case have significant impacts on Google’s future business operations and the broader internet search ecosystem, but it is likely to also serve as an important signal to how judges view antitrust cases against Big Tech companies.  

As we have noted in previous versions of this newsletter, remedies the government is seeking in the search trial include banning Google from locking in default status on third-party devices, requiring the company to divest from its Chrome and Android businesses, and forcing Google to share search and ad data with rivals. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that these remedies will:

“(1) stop and prevent exclusion; (2) prevent Google from self-preferencing; (3) disclose data critical to restoring competition; (4) increase transparency and control for advertisers; (5) end Google’s unlawful distribution; and (6) allow for the enforcement of the proposed judgment while preventing circumvention.”

Google pushed back on the DOJ’s arguments, claiming that the government’s proposals would make it harder for consumers to access Google, raise prices and slow innovation, harm consumer privacy and security, and cede ground in the global AI race to China. Instead, Google has suggested significantly less stringent remedies such as allowing multiple default search engine agreements or letting partners preload apps without bundling Chrome or Search.

During closing arguments, Judge Mehta pressed representatives from both the DOJ and Google over their arguments and whether there is a middle ground between the two proposals. As TechPolicy.Press noted regarding Google’s distribution agreements:

“At closing arguments, the court asked whether, for example, giving distribution partners a year or two to wean themselves off Google’s default payments would be less disruptive, or if it would be appropriate to make exceptions for companies like Mozilla that are heavily dependent on the payments to fund their operations. At the same time, the court was clear that Google’s remedy proposals did not go far enough and that the tens of billions it pays Apple every year for default placement has influenced Apple’s decision to stay out of the general search game.”

Judge Mehta also engaged both the DOJ and Google on their arguments regarding divestiture of the Chrome browser. At one point, Judge Mehta asked Google's lead attorney John Schmidtlein if spinning off Chrome would be “a little cleaner and a little more elegant and a little less speculative than some of the other remedies.” However, the Judge also posed a series of questions to DOJ attorneys over how the forced sale would work in practice and the legal precedent for such an order.

Another key dynamic in remedies trial, though one less prevalent in government’s original case, is the impact of AI on Google’s search position. The DOJ has argued for remedies to extend to GenAI technology to ensure fair competition in the emerging market, including by making Google share its index and search data – such as users' search queries, clicks, and results – with AI developers who want to license it. However, Google contended that it faces steep competition from AI startups already, and that forcing the company to share such information would harm consumer privacy.

Judge Mehta is expected to rule on proposed remedies in August.

Bottom Line: If DOJ is successful, the case could set a powerful precedent for future antitrust enforcement that could impact ongoing cases against Amazon, Apple, and Meta, and have global ripple effects, influencing regulators around the world. Still, it is likely to be a while before Google is forced to implement any substantive changes to its business practices, and the company has stated it intends to appeal the underlying decision that it maintains an illegal monopoly in search. But Google’s antitrust problems do not end with search; the company is also facing a remedies trial in the case over its ad tech monopoly, slated to start this fall.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Rinner Lays Out Policies on Remedies

In a speech at the Milbank-George Washington University Antitrust Salon, DAAG Bill Rinner put forward the standards the Antitrust Division will be using to assess whether proposed merger remedies adequately mitigate potential harm.

As many observers note, there is a through line of increased enforcement running between the Trump and Biden administrations with bipartisan concerns about corporate concentration. However, DAAG Rinner’s speech makes clear that the acceptance of proposed remedies is a distinct point of departure from their Biden Administration predecessors. Specifically, he made a point to emphasize a strong preference for structural, rather than behavioral, remedies to mitigate possible anticompetitive harms. 

DAAG Rinner stated, “Structural remedies are preferred as an ‘efficient default’ principle…Ideally, structural relief offers a scalpel to remove harmful issues that may infect an otherwise lawful transaction.” This stands in contrast to the Biden Administration which was often hesitant to restructure proposed deals rather than outright rejecting the proposed tie-up.

The speech came following one of the first examples of the Trump Administration accepting structural remedies in order to clear a transaction. On June 2, the Division announced that they were clearing Keysight’s acquisition of Spirent. In that deal, the DOJ found that post-merger the newly formed firm would have an 85% share in the high-speed ethernet testing and a dominant position in other related markets. To remedy the harm Keysight agreed to divest certain business lines to Viavi.

Bottom Line: DAAG Rinner’s speech presents more openness to settling with firms who have transactions before the Division. While each proposed deal is unique, the willingness to engage in remedies, coupled with continued tough enforcement offers a middle ground between previous Republican administrations and the strict enforcement during the Biden Administration.

Essential insights and analysis

Antitrust Under Trump 2.0: A Conservative Realignment Takes Hold

In a series of speeches delivered this spring, President Trump’s top antitrust enforcers have signaled a sharp departure from the laissez-faire posture enforcement officials took throughout the ‘90s and 2000s. At the same time, the Trump 2.0 FTC and DOJ have expressed a reluctance to go as far as their Biden Administration predecessors. Instead, they are carving out a distinct, conservative-populist vision that fuses aggressive M&A enforcement, grounded in the text of the law, with deep skepticism toward broad sector-wide regulations.

In a speech at the University of Notre Dame, Gail Slater debuted what she called an “America First Antitrust” approach, framing enforcement as a tool to defend the nation’s “forgotten men and women” – workers, consumers, small businesses, and innovators. During the speech she laid out three key values underpinning her approach:

1. protection of individual liberty from both government and corporate tyranny;

2. a healthy respect for textualism, originalism, and precedent grounded in a commitment to robust and fair law enforcement; and

3. a healthy fear of regulation that saps economic opportunity by stifling rather than promoting competition.

Her message was clear: antitrust is law enforcement, not regulation. She rejected sweeping regulatory schemes in favor of targeted legal action rooted in the original meaning of antitrust statutes. Slater also announced a new task force aimed at rolling back rules that stifle competition.

Similarly, in a keynote at the International Competition Network in May, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson warned against European-style regulatory overreach, describing sweeping preemptive rules as a “sledgehammer” that stifles innovation and entrenches corporate giants. He argued instead for “ex post” enforcement, acting only when concrete harms are proven, and placed a particular emphasis on digital markets and emerging technologies like AI. “We should still prefer the scalpel of enforcement to the sledgehammer of regulation,” Ferguson stated.

The FTC’s two Republican commissioners have backed up this approach of “robust and fair” enforcement. In a public statement on his conservative vision for antitrust, Commissioner Mark Meador criticized Robert Bork’s consumer welfare standard as overly narrow and out of step with the founders’ intent and argued that conservatives must reclaim antitrust as a defense against both corporate and governmental tyranny. “Monopolies aren’t just bad for markets—they’re bad for liberty,” he stated.

Additionally, during a speech the USC Gould conference, Commissioner Melissa Holyoak rejected the use of abstract economic models and emphasized the need for enforcement that ordinary Americans can see, understand, and benefit from. She cautioned against regulatory overreach, noting that regulations often serve powerful firms by raising barriers to entry and stifling competition.

Bottom Line:Together, these speeches signal a uniquely Trumpian view of antitrust enforcement that is skeptical of both corporate power and consolidation and also of regulatory overreach. The administration is continuing to aggressively pursue Big Tech and other monopolistic actors through antimonopoly cases, but remains staunchly opposed to sweeping regulations, like those enacted in the European Union. And if corporations act in ways that President Trump finds objectionable, the administration could seek to use antitrust enforcement to elicit changes.