A US judge recently decided not to break up Google, despite a ruling last year that the company held a monopoly in the online search market. Between Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Meta, there are more than 45 ongoing antitrust investigations in the EU (the majority under the new EU Digital Markets Act) and in the US.
While the outcome could have been much worse for Google, other rulings and investigations have the potential to cut to the heart of how the big tech companies make money. As such, these antitrust cases can drive real change around how the tech giants do business – with implications both for their competitors and for ordinary users.
Some investigations focus on potential breaches of longstanding competition legislation, such as restricting the ability of software to work with other software, while others address controversies that have emerged only in the last few years.
Previous antitrust cases have been based on decades-old competition legislation, namely the US Sherman Act, passed in 1890, and the EU’s treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the first iteration of which was signed in 1957. More recent cases in the EU have been based on the newer Digital Markets Act.
A quick search shows at least 15 different countries (including individual countries within the EU) where competition authorities have initiated or concluded investigations into Google’s business practices.
When US Judge Amit Mehta decided not to order a break-up of Google in August, or to force the company to sell off its internet browser, Google Chrome – which had both been raised as potential outcomes – he instead imposed a number of other commitments on the company.
Hefty fines
In September 2025, the European Commission also imposed a fine of €2.95bn (£2.5 billion) on Google, in relation to its search advertising practices. The commission said that Google favoured its own online display advertising technology services “to the detriment of competing providers”.
In a statement, Google called the fine “unjustified” and said the changes would “hurt thousands of European businesses by making it harder for them to make money”.
These investigations are not limited to the search giant, however. In the last few years, Microsoft, Apple and Meta have also been under investigation by the EU. So how should we interpret this flurry of enforcement against the tech giants and what does the future hold for them?
Competition investigations hit at the core of these companies’ business activities, so they have an extremely high incentive to fight for every conceivable aspect of their business model. Voluntarily giving some parts of their business up would mean foregoing substantial profits.
Companies clearly have to weigh up the potential downsides of compromising over their business approaches against hefty fines and major restrictions over how they operate in particular territories. In the US case involving Google, major changes to the company had been on the table, including a sell-off of the Google Chrome browser. Needless to say, this would have dealt a major blow to the company.
In 2023, the European Commission started an investigation into Microsoft over the company tying its Microsoft Teams software to its Office 365 and Microsoft 365 software suites. The investigation was initiated following a complaint by Slack, which makes software that competes with Teams.
The way this case concluded is one example of how tech companies can mitigate damage to their business. Microsoft presented its own commitments to the European Commission over the Teams investigation.
The tech giant had to amend its original proposal following market testing by the European Commission, but in September, they were accepted by the Commission. The commitments include making available versions of Office 365 and Microsoft 365 without Teams and at a reduced price.
Behaviour change
Where possible, by offering their own commitments, companies can retain a degree of control and, potentially, avoid a fine. Other recent cases show that those fines can be substantial. In April, the Commission fined Apple €500m after it said the company had breached the Digital Markets Act by preventing app developers from steering users to cheaper deals outside the app store.
In July, Apple launched an appeal against the decision, saying that the Commission went “far beyond what the law requires” in the dispute.
The commission has also investigated Meta over the company’s “pay-or-consent” advertising model. Under the model, EU users of Facebook and Instagram had a choice between their personal data gathered from different Meta services being combined for advertising, or paying a monthly subscription for an ad-free service. Finding that the company had breached the Digital Markets Act, the Commission fined Meta €200 million.
The commission says that when it decides that companies are not complying with legislation, it can impose fines up to 10% of the company’s total worldwide turnover. Such fines can go up to 20% in case of repeated infringement.
In cases of continued non-compliance, the commission can oblige tech companies to sell a business or parts of it, or ban them from acquisitions of other companies involved in areas related to their non-compliance.
Such intervention is likely to place boundaries on any big tech company with regard to their business practices towards competitors and users. As discussed, we have already started to see some evidence of this.
Users are now able to use different services from the companies without having to give consent to their data. There will also be changes in how users engage with some of these services. For example, you may not be able to click on a hyperlinked hotel in a map contained in search results in order to go to its booking website.
Reduced linking was carried out in the EU for Google Maps because of perceptions about the company’s dominance in the search market.
But overall, the expectation is that in the not-too-distant future, big tech will be more constrained in the business models they adopt, especially where they relate to market competition.
- is a Professor of Competition Law and Economics, Queen Mary University of London
- This article first appeared in The Conversation
