> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://spyglass.org/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Antitrust's Hindsight Problem - URL: https://spyglass.org/google-meta-antitrust/ - Published: 2025-04-22T13:45:07.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-04T10:38:37.000Z - Description: The government keeps trying to litigate problems that are already being naturally disrupted... - Author: M.G. Siegler - Tags: legal, politics, google, meta, facebook, instagram, advertising, apple, tech ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/2025/04/ChatGPT-Image-Apr-22--2025--02_38_40-PM-1.png) The most interesting aspect of the recent ruling against Google is that they've now lost an antitrust case *twice*. Yes, yes, [they're saying](https://x.com/NewsFromGoogle/status/1912892999047971152?ref=spyglass.org) they "half won", but if you have to say that, well, it's like [the idiom around being "half pregnant"](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/you-cant-be-half-pregnant?ref=spyglass.org), you lost. And this puts the company in an unprecedented place in the history of corporations. They're the Donald Trump of antitrust cases. Of course, even though the President has the inglorious distinction of having been *impeached twice*... well, he's President again! And I suspect there will be a similar effect on Google as a result of these losses. That is, I doubt it will dent them much. They'll be okay. If anything, I suspect these cases – as well as the myriad other antitrust cases against Big Tech™ – will ultimately point to how ineffectual current antitrust law is for our modern age ([apologies, Lina Khan](https://spyglass.org/earth-to-lina-khan/)). But that will likely only be obvious in hindsight, which is interesting because that itself is a big part of the problem with these cases: that they're being litigated with hindsight... I mean, that's sort of true about every such case. You have to go after what is viewed to be problematic elements of the past, obviously. We don't have *Minority Report*\-style pre-crime – [yet](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14588123/Government-secretly-creating-Minority-Report-style-murder-prediction-tool-uses-personal-data-identify-likely-killers.html?ref=spyglass.org). But these Big Tech™ antitrust cases in particular seem to look back upon the past with a different set of glasses than how things were viewed in real time. Nowhere is that more evident than in [Meta's ongoing antitrust case](https://spyglass.org/meta-trial/). The FTC wants the company to sell-off Instagram and WhatsApp, without really acknowledging that the common consensus at the time – in particular with the former – was that [the deals were silly ones](https://spyglass.org/without-instagram-meta-is-screwed/) in which Facebook, as the company was then known, was drastically overpaying. Essentially, the government is going after Meta for doing deals that are only deemed savvy and anti-competitive in hindsight. It's sort of the opposite of pre-crime! It's making things crimes in the present that were not crimes in the past. But I'm also pretty confident that the courts will see that in Meta's case. Google's cases are less straight-forward – hence, the losses. This latest case around their ads business probably seems like the right call, but it's also a relatively small ([and shrinking](https://www.theinformation.com/articles/googles-breakup-likely-second-antitrust-loss?rc=lsmcir&ref=spyglass.org)) part of Google's business. They clearly don't want to lose the case – again, it's a reputation hit, if nothing else – but of all the ones to lose, it's probably the easiest to absorb depending on the remedies (likely having to sell-off/spin-out some of their ad tech stack for third-party sites). This is not going to impact Search advertising, which remains the golden goose. Speaking of Search, [their last loss](https://spyglass.org/google-antitrust/), around the dominance of Search, would be far more problematic were Google to have to comply with the best laid plans of the government – including, selling-off Chrome and, if that proved ineffectual in disrupting their web search dominance ([which, spoiler alert, it likely would](https://spyglass.org/google-chrome-spin-out/)), selling-off/spinning-out Android. But I don't expect either of those outcomes [to happen](https://spyglass.org/the-google-break-up/) and instead, Google will probably have to end – or perhaps just alter – their search default deals with companies like Mozilla and Apple. And, if anything, *that might be a bigger issue for those two*, with Mozilla losing a substantial part of their revenue and Apple losing over *$20B a year* in pretty much pure profit thanks to such payments. No wonder [they're fighting like hell to try to help Google here](https://spyglass.org/appl/). And while it's significantly more boring of an outcome, the end/altering of such deals also feels like the right one. But one suspects the government won't like that because it undoubtedly won't change much about the current state of search – other than, again, Google perhaps not paying as much for placement. Google is at such a place now with web search that they're going to win by default, even if they're not the default. And so again, making moves to try to remove Chrome from the equation seems like [a solution that doesn't really fit the problem](https://spyglass.org/chrome-chatgpt-browser/). But it sounds "winning" to the government and would garner a lot of headlines, while probably not changing much. You know what would and likely will change such things? Time. What's going to disrupt Google's Search dominance is not selling off Chrome, it's new technology and companies that (slowly) obsolete web search. Again, the government won't want to hear this because it doesn't fit the antitrust narrative. It's essentially letting the market do its thing. And unlike in the past with Big Oil or Big Telecom, technology now moves so fast and is so dynamic that this happens relatively quickly, without the need for legal intervention – which moves far more slowly. For proof of this, look no further than Microsoft. That case is always highlighted as an example of how antitrust can work against Big Tech. [But it actually didn't work](https://spyglass.org/google-disrupted-microsoft/). The government is once again changing things in hindsight to fit their narrative. While Microsoft did lose their case, the proposed break-up never happened because the ruling was eventually overturned (on appeal, on a technicality) and then settled. But guess what? Microsoft was disrupted anyway! And while the government and proponents of antitrust would say that the case slowed Microsoft down, that's still not what ultimately did Microsoft in. It was – wait for it – time and technology. It was Google! And then Apple! Not because they were able to make rival PC operating systems – Apple had been trying to do that for *years*, obviously – but because they rode in with new technology that made PC operating systems no longer matter. The web is what made Windows obsolete. And Google made the web work because it figured out the right business model to make their Search (and other) services scale, in the form of advertising. And then Apple came along with the iPhone, which was perfectly timed, in part, because the web had destroyed the dominance of Windows. Also, wait, *nothing did Microsoft in*. A couple weeks ago they were the most valuable company in the world again! They're a nearly $3T company! That's obviously a different story – [a sort of comeback story](https://spyglass.org/10-years-of-satya-nadella/) – but it too speaks to the dynamic and fast-moving nature of technology in our modern age. And nowhere is that more apparent than with the current wave of AI. And that latest and greatest technology nicely ties this all together because it is both what has taken Microsoft to new heights and is also [what is likely to disrupt Google Search](https://spyglass.org/kids-and-ai/). It's already happening, whether Google will admit it or not. (They probably *should* to get the government off their backs!) But they also don't have to because you can just watch their actions in moving extremely fast – [certainly for Google](https://spyglass.org/google-isnt-lazy-its-timid-as-it-sadly-must-be/) – to insert Gemini anywhere and everywhere they can. But most importantly, [within Search itself](https://spyglass.org/ai-google-search/). Now, that is the one part where the government may have a point and a role here. Rather than worrying about the dominance of Google Search, if they were focused on making sure Google doesn't [leverage their market position](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-21/google-paid-samsung-enormous-sums-for-gemini-ai-app-installs?ref=spyglass.org) to control the future of AI in an anticompetitive way, that's the correct framing here. And you're starting to hear them talk in such a way. The problem goes back to pre-crime. No one can know for sure that AI will be the key to dominating the future right now. Many believe that, [and for good reason, I think](https://spyglass.org/a-call-to-ai/). But it's trying to litigate the future. So yeah, that puts the government in a tricky spot between the past and the future. Still, that future should clearly be the focus versus the past. And so if there's a way to keep an eye on ensuring that a market position isn't leveraged in an anticompetitive way – *while still allowing Google to compete* – that's the angle. Admittedly, it's a tough needle to thread. But even without that, it feels like the market is moving in ways right now that are naturally starting to erode what all of these antitrust cases are focused on. The humorously defined social media dominance that Meta enjoys [seemingly](https://spyglass.org/the-inventors-of-facebook-present-facebook/) [matters](https://spyglass.org/a-chatgpt-social-feed-makes-fun-and-practical-sense/) [less by the day](https://spyglass.org/meta-unbundling/). And same with Google when it comes to Search. As noted, the ad case against Google is probably the strongest, but it's perhaps also under attack as AI starts to change [the way the web actually works](https://spyglass.org/the-end-of-the-web/) – or, at least, is *served*. Meanwhile, the cases against Apple and Amazon are yet to begin. But there are already [clear issues with the Apple case as well](https://spyglass.org/good-luck-doj/), largely in trying to cram their market position with the iPhone into older antitrust definitions around market dominance. There as well, there's perhaps a case to be made [against the App Store](https://spyglass.org/tag/app-store/) in particular as a form of distribution,[1](#one) but it's going to require the DoJ lawyers to yes, think different. About the future, not about the past. **Disclosure: I worked at Google for 11 years as a partner at their venture fund, GV. Obviously, my thoughts are my own on these matters.* [Reminder: What Actually Disrupted MicrosoftIt was not the Justice Department, despite the rhetoric this week…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/icon/Spyglass-Rings---Multi-796.png)SpyglassM.G. Siegler![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/thumbnail/mgs22_a_microsoft_logo_in_a_web_browser_window_--ar_43_--v_6._f211fe6e-bd14-40bf-a0ef-806e70dffedd_0-6.png)](https://spyglass.org/google-disrupted-microsoft/) [Chrome AloneIf Google were to sell off Chrome, who would benefit? Anyone?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/icon/Spyglass-Rings---Multi-799.png)SpyglassM.G. Siegler![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/thumbnail/image--57--2.jpg)](https://spyglass.org/google-chrome-spin-out/) [Let’s Not Pass ‘Go’ Just Yet...A few thoughts on the Google monopoly ruling…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/icon/Spyglass-Rings---Multi-797.png)SpyglassM.G. Siegler![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/thumbnail/DALL-E-Aug-06-Gavel-with-Google-Logo-1-5.webp)](https://spyglass.org/google-antitrust/) [Forget the Fate of Chrome, Focus on the Fate of the BrowserIn debating what undoubtedly won’t happen, we’re looking past some key things that are -- and might…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/icon/Spyglass-Rings---Multi-798.png)SpyglassM.G. Siegler![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/thumbnail/DALL-E-2024-11-22-11.57.12---A-surreal-illustration-of-the-Google-Chrome-logo-being-squeezed--with-the-iconic-multicolored-sphere--red--green--yellow--and-blue--appearing-slightly-3-6.webp)](https://spyglass.org/chrome-chatgpt-browser/) [Earth to Lina KhanNearly every point in her NYT op-ed is wrong![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/icon/Spyglass-Rings---Multi-795.png)SpyglassM.G. Siegler![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/af/ca/afcaa655-46e2-45b8-889a-2881de5cce69/content/images/thumbnail/mgs22_the_earth_in_blue_and_green_with_a_person_floating_in_s_788062cb-35cb-4d1c-8c48-9728c314205c_2-2.png)](https://spyglass.org/earth-to-lina-khan/) --- 1 Incidentally [yet another case Google lost recently](https://spyglass.org/google-epic-fail/) \-- though not brought on by the government, but instead by Epic Games. But it's potentially the most problematic in the short term of all their losses!