A COURT IN the US ruled that Google’s search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to quash competition and stifle innovation in a decision that could shake up the internet and hobble one of the world’s best-known companies.

After reviewing reams of evidence that included testimony from senior executives at Google, Microsoft and Apple during last year’s 10-week trial, US District Judge Amit Mehta issued his decision after the two sides presented their closing arguments in May.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta wrote in his 277-page ruling.

He said Google’s dominance in the search market is evidence of its monopoly.

Google “enjoys an 89.2% share of the market for general search services, which increases to 94.9% on mobile devices”, the ruling said.

It represents a major setback for Google and its parent, Alphabet, which had argued that its popularity stemmed from consumers’ overwhelming desire to use a search engine so good at what it does that it has become synonymous with looking things up online.

Google’s search engine processes an estimated 8.5 billion queries per day worldwide, nearly doubling its daily volume from 12 years ago, according to a recent study from the investment firm BOND.

Google will almost certainly appeal against the decision in a process that may land in the Supreme Court.

The decision vindicates antitrust regulators at the Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit nearly four years ago while Donald Trump was still president, and has been escalating efforts to rein in Big Tech under President Joe Biden.

“This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people,” said attorney general Merrick Garland. “No company, no matter how large or influential, is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws.”

The case depicted Google as a technological bully that has methodically thwarted competition.

The case argued it had done so to protect a search engine that has become the centrepiece of a digital advertising machine that generated nearly $240 billion (€219 billion) in revenue last year.

Justice Department lawyers said that Google’s monopoly enabled it to charge advertisers artificially high prices while enjoying the luxury of having more time and money to invest in improving the quality of its search engine — a lax approach that affected consumers.

Google ridiculed the allegations, noting that consumers have historically changed search engines when they become disillusioned with the results they are getting.

For instance, Yahoo — now a minor player on the internet — was the most popular search engine during the 1990s before Google came along.

The potential outcome could result in a wide-ranging order requiring Google to dismantle some of the pillars of its internet empire.

One such measure may include preventing Google from shelling out more than 20 billion dollars (€18.2 billion) annually to ensure its search engine automatically answers queries on the iPhone and other internet-connected devices.

This measure has already been taken by the EU in January after the bloc ruled that Apple must broaden competition on its devices. Under Digital Market Union regulations, EU users must be offered alternatives to Google.

But after the next phase, the judge could conclude only modest changes are required to level the playing field.

Google still faces other legal threats in the US and abroad. In September, a federal trial is scheduled to begin in Virginia over the Justice Department’s allegations that Google’s advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly.