In the closing arguments of the high-stakes antitrust lawsuit against Google, Justice Department lawyers argued that the tech giant's dominance as an internet search engine is an illegal monopoly sustained by over $20 billion spent annually to stifle competition. The trial, spanning 10 weeks, has centered around Google's contracts with companies like Apple to make it the default search engine on devices, with evidence revealing that such contracts account for a significant portion of Google's expenses.

The U.S. government, a coalition of states, and Google presented their closing arguments on Friday to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who will now analyze whether Google has engaged in anticompetitive behavior as a search engine monopoly. Google contends that its success is a result of delivering excellent search results that customers seek, maintaining that users have the freedom to switch to other search engines if they so desire.

The trial has also delved into the definition of the search engine market. While Google is dominant over other general search engines like Bing and Yahoo, the tech giant argues that it faces intense competition in targeted searches. For example, Google stated that customers may prefer to search for products on Amazon, plan vacations on AirBnB, or look for restaurants on Yelp. Additionally, Google highlighted the competition posed by social media platforms like Facebook and TikTok.

During the closing arguments, Judge Mehta questioned whether these other companies truly operate in the same market as Google. He emphasized that Google's ability to place ads directly in response to user queries sets it apart from social media companies. Google's attorney, John Schmidtlein, countered by asserting that social media platforms possess significant user interest data, similar to Google.

Google's argument was also centered around the continuously evolving nature of the internet and its market dynamics. Noting that experts once believed Yahoo would dominate search indefinitely, Google claimed that younger tech consumers now view it as "Grandpa Google."

While Google's search services are free for users, the company generates revenue from selling ads accompanying search results. The Justice Department contended that Google's search engine monopoly allows it to artificially increase prices for advertisers, ultimately affecting consumers. Internal Google documents were presented, suggesting that the company modified its ad algorithms to potentially provide lower-quality search ad results in order to boost revenue.

Judge Mehta has not specified a ruling date, but it is anticipated that it may take several months. If he finds Google guilty of violating antitrust laws, a "remedies" phase of the trial will be scheduled to determine measures that can promote competition in the search-engine market. The government has not disclosed the specific remedy it would seek.

In the end, the trial's outcome will have significant implications for the future of Google's monopolistic status and the broader landscape of the internet search engine market.