The New York Times [unpaywalled]: “Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search, a federal judge ruled on Monday, a landmark decision that strikes at the power of tech giants in the modern internet era and that may fundamentally alter the way they do business. Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a 277-page ruling that Google had abused a monopoly over the search business. The Justice Department and states had sued Google, accusing it of illegally cementing its dominance, in part, by paying other companies, like Apple and Samsung, billions of dollars a year to have Google automatically handle search queries on their smartphones and web browsers. “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta said in his ruling. The ruling is a harsh verdict on the rise of giant technology companies that have used their roots in the internet to influence the way we shop, consume information and search online — and indicates a potential limit of Big Tech’s power. It is likely to influence other government antitrust lawsuits against Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The last significant antitrust ruling against a tech company targeted Microsoft more than two decades ago…”

See also The Atlantic: “But it’s possible, and even likely, that almost nothing will change for consumers or for Google, no matter what the court decides. This case takes inspiration from the antitrust ruling against Microsoft 24 years ago. Microsoft had been accused of using its monopoly position in operating systems to quash competition in the developing web-browser market. At the time, Windows was used on more than 90 percent of personal computers worldwide, and Microsoft had built Internet Explorer into its operating system—arguably preventing nascent competitors from gaining a foothold. To remedy this problem, the court initially decided that Microsoft should be split into two companies: an operating-system company for Windows, and a different entity for its other business interests. Microsoft appealed to prevent that decision, and was successful.