Google is fighting lawsuits on four fronts at once. Federal courts have ruled against the company in three separate antitrust cases — covering general search, digital advertising technology, and the Play Store — and a major privacy class action over Chrome’s Incognito mode ended in a 2024 settlement. The current Google lawsuits could reshape how the company distributes its search engine, sells online ads, runs its app store, and handles data from users who thought they were browsing privately. Appeals are pending in all three antitrust cases, so some outcomes may shift, but the liability findings and remedy orders already on the books are the clearest picture of what is coming.
The Search Antitrust Case
In August 2024, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that Google is a monopolist in general search and search text advertising and that it maintained that monopoly in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The court found Google paid billions to be the preset default search engine on nearly every smartphone, tablet, and browser sold in the United States, locking rivals out of the main channels people use to search. Google handled about 90 percent of U.S. search queries at the time of the ruling.1United States Department of Justice. Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google
What Google Must Change
In September 2025, Judge Amit Mehta issued the remedies order. He rejected the Justice Department’s request to force Google to sell Chrome, calling the divestiture a “poor fit” for the case and saying it would be “incredibly messy and highly risky.” That was a significant win for the company.
The remedies that did come down target the exclusive deals at the heart of the case. Google can no longer condition the licensing of any of its apps on preset placement of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or the Gemini app. Revenue-sharing agreements cannot require a partner to keep those products installed for more than one year. Google cannot stop any partner from also distributing a competing search engine, browser, or generative AI product. And Google must share certain search index and user-interaction data with competitors, and offer search syndication services so rivals can improve their own results and ads.1United States Department of Justice. Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google
The inclusion of Gemini matters. The Justice Department argued throughout the remedies phase that generative AI products should be treated as search access points, so Google could not simply rerun its default-deal strategy using AI chatbots instead of a classic search box. The order’s restrictions on bundling and exclusivity cover Gemini alongside Search and Chrome.1United States Department of Justice. Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google
Both Sides Have Appealed
In February 2026, the Justice Department and 35 state attorneys general filed notices of appeal, arguing the remedies were too weak and that the court should have ordered Chrome’s sale. Google is also appealing, challenging the finding that it violated antitrust law in the first place. Final resolution could take years.
The Ad Technology Case
A separate antitrust case targets the technology Google sells for buying and placing display advertising. The Justice Department and a group of state attorneys general sued in the Eastern District of Virginia in January 2023, alleging Google controlled the publisher’s tool, the advertiser’s tool, and the exchange where ad transactions happen.2United States Department of Justice. Department of Justice Prevails in Landmark Antitrust Case Against Google
In April 2025, the court ruled that Google illegally monopolized two of the three markets at issue: the publisher ad server market and the ad exchange market. It also found Google unlawfully tied its publisher ad server to its exchange, forcing publishers who used one to use the other. Google did defeat one count: the court held the government had not proven a separate relevant market for advertiser-side ad networks.3Justia Law. United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:2023cv00108
Remedies in this case are still being argued. The Justice Department has asked the court to force Google to sell its ad exchange, AdX, and either to open-source the algorithms behind its ad auctions or to divest Google Ad Manager, the publisher-side ad server. If the court grants even part of that request, it would break apart the integrated ad business that produces a substantial share of Google’s revenue.
The Google Play Store Case
In December 2023, a jury unanimously found that Google violated federal and California antitrust law by monopolizing Android app distribution and in-app billing, and by unlawfully tying the Play Store to its own billing system, which charged developers up to 30 percent on in-app purchases.4United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC
A separate action brought by state attorneys general and a consumer class settled for $700 million. Of that, $630 million was earmarked for consumers who made Play Store purchases between August 2016 and September 2023, with the remaining $70 million going to the states.4United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC
The Three-Year Injunction
In October 2024, the trial court issued a three-year injunction running through November 2027. Google must allow competing Android app stores to access the Play Store’s catalog, and must permit rival app stores to be distributed through the Play Store itself. Developers can use their own payment systems and send users to outside websites to buy things, ending the requirement that purchases go through Google Play Billing. And Google cannot pay developers, device makers, or distributors to favor the Play Store, or require exclusivity for app launches or preinstallation.
Google also cut its service fees around the litigation, dropping the standard commission from 30 percent to 20 percent and lowering subscription fees to 10 percent. The company has appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit, arguing the remedies sweep too far.4United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC
The Incognito Mode Privacy Settlement
A 2020 class action accused Google of continuing to collect user data when people browsed in Chrome’s Incognito mode, pulling search histories through advertising tools embedded on other websites. The complaint framed the practice as illegal wiretapping and invasion of privacy under federal and state law.
Google settled in 2024. Class members got no money. Instead, Google agreed to destroy billions of data records collected from private browsing sessions, to disclose more plainly that Google itself can still see activity during Incognito sessions, and to block third-party cookie tracking by default in private mode. Individual class members kept the right to sue Google separately in state court for monetary damages.
Where Things Stand
Three of the four matters are still moving. The search case is on appeal from both sides, with the remedies order already in force but the underlying monopoly finding contested. The ad tech case is in its remedies phase, with possible divestiture of Google’s ad exchange on the table. The Play Store injunction is in effect through November 2027 while Google appeals to the Ninth Circuit. The Incognito settlement is final as to the class, but individual damages claims can still be filed in state court. The near-term question is less whether Google’s businesses will change and more how deeply the appellate courts will let the lower-court orders cut.