How the US v. Google search case unfolded

Justice Department and plaintiff states file suit

Liability memorandum opinion finds Google violated Section 2

Memorandum Opinion, United States v. Google LLC, No. 20-cv-3010, consolidated with Colorado v. Google LLC, No. 20-cv-3715 (ECF No. 1033). The court found relevant markets for general search services and general search text ads, held that Google has monopoly power in both and that its exclusive distribution agreements had anticompetitive effects without valid procompetitive justification, and held Google liable under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. It found that Google lacks monopoly power in a broader search advertising market, found no general search advertising market, held Google not liable for conduct involving SA360 and declined to sanction Google over the preservation of employee chat messages.

Remedies ruling announced

Remedies memorandum opinion (as described by the Justice Department and the final judgment). According to the Justice Department, the court barred Google from exclusive contracts relating to distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant and the Gemini app, required it to make certain search index and user interaction data available to qualified competitors, and required it to offer search and search text ads syndication services to certain competitors. The plaintiffs' later appellate brief states that they do not cross-appeal the court's divestiture ruling.

Final judgment entered

Final Judgment, No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM, with accompanying Memorandum Opinion. The final judgment implements the remedies and creates a five member Technical Committee to assist with enforcement and compliance. It takes effect 60 days after entry and expires six years after that effective date unless extended or ended early. Technical Committee members were appointed by orders of 21 January 2026 and 9 May 2026.

Google announces its notice of appeal and asks the court to pause some remedies

District court declines for now to pause the data sharing and syndication remedies

Ruling on Google's motion to stay remedies pending appeal (as reported by Bloomberg and MediaPost). The judge denied for now Google's request to pause the data sharing and syndication remedies, finding the request premature because any data sharing was months away. Bloomberg reported that the plaintiffs must give the court 45 days' notice before data sharing begins and that Google may renew its request after that notice.

Google files its opening brief in the D.C. Circuit, as reported

Google files a reply brief urging the appeals court to overturn the ruling, as reported by MLex