No. This case was launched by Trump's DOJ in 2020 [0], in conjunction with the Republican Attorneys General representing a bunch of states that Trump won handily this election. Trump's Attorney General Barr released a statement when they announced the lawsuit [1]:

> Today, millions of Americans rely on the Internet and online platforms for their daily lives. For years, there have been broad, bipartisan concerns about business practices leading to massive concentrations of economic power in our digital economy. Hearing those concerns, I have made it a primary commitment of my tenure as Attorney General for the Department of Justice to examine whether technology markets have been deprived of free, fair, and open competition.

This case has never has been a partisan issue. It was opened by a Republican DOJ and pushed through by a Democratic DOJ, and there's no reason to believe that the Republicans won't see through what they started.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-an...

No. They’ll change the settlement terms, however, to probably include their priorities.

I hope not. An important part of encouraging innovation in tech is to take power away from the megacorps that will otherwise use their capital and distribution channels and illegitimate practices (like bundling) to control everything and take all the gains. These actions from Lina Khan, the DOJ, the EU commissions, etc are crucial to creating a fair landscape for competition.

Google just needs to deposit a few million into an offshore account and this will disappear into the ether.

Then administration will throw so much “anti woke” shit and the average American will forget about it.

If Sundar flatters him enough.

We can hope, his DOJ might amend their demands or the judges he appoints will overturn it on appeal if needed.

The case started under Trump so probably not

> does anyone else think that trump is going to nix this thing as soon as he takes office?

Depends on how much Google is willing to scratch Trump's back. Remember, Trump is a corrupt quid pro quo President. All he needs is something valuable in exchange for his corrupt powers.

So it's hard to say, Trump hates Google, Gaetz hated Google, I assume any Trumpist (I guess it's Bondi now) thinks Google is "unfair to conservatives". So it's easy to imagine letting Google reap the penalties of the existing case being an easy choice for them.

On the other hand, he's promised to remove Khan, Kanter, etc, and end antitrust enforcement. So someone may have to actively decide to continue as is, or change tack a bit.

The third concern of course is that Trump is a crook. He might not like Google but I'm sure neither him nor Sundar would have any qualms with figuring out how to slide a billion dollars in Trump's pocket to make the case go away.

Not really. He and his backers actually want this to happen to GOOG.

Google's entire argument against being regulated has been 'We're not monopolizing search, people choose to use us!'

The latter part also happens to conveniently be true when you buy all the available space that a competitor would need -- default placement in Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Android.

You don't get to rig the game and then claim the results actually demonstrate everyone naturally loves you.

I remain utterly confused how apple's rule that you can't link to a purchase page, and can't mention the 30% tax in-app, hasn't had its day in court yet.

Like, you can have a free app in the store, with a website where you can purchase premium, and then in the app have an "upgrade" button that just displays the error "You cannot upgrade to premium in the app" and hope users find your website.

You aren't allowed to have "You can upgrade to premium using our site, at https://site.com" message because if you can pay money on site.com, having that error message is seen as evading the app store tax.

In both of those cases though, apple did the same amount of work, so the justification you sometimes hear, that "30% is fair because you're paying for app store resources and apple to advertise your app", seems like it doesn't really apply.

Like, spotify is a perfect example of this. They don't let you upgrade on iOS because paying 30% to apple would mean they'd lose money on every sell (music has very thin margins), and spotify isn't even allowed to display a good error message because linking to their webpage, or mentioning the app store tax, would be against app store ToS.

And then apple music also exists, and ignores the 30% tax. It seems so blindingly obviously harmful to consumers.

This all applies to the google play app store too, but at least on the google play app store, there's no "thought crime" of informing your users they can go punch in a credit card on the web.

The DOJ can go after more than one company at a time. And they are, in fact, doing so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024)

> It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either.

As others have mentioned, the government can do more than one thing at a time. Here is a list: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/business/antitrust-.... Perhaps Google's case had just progressed faster, and perhaps it was more clear-cut or easier to prove.

Google's records retention policies were also over the top and perhaps hurt it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru...:

> But Google has faced the broadest criticism for its actions, with the judges in all three antitrust cases chastising the company for its communications practices.

And they engaged in some pretty sketchy practices:

> If using the right words and deleting messages did not keep Google out of the courthouse, the company concluded, invoking the lawyers would....

> A message surfaced in the Epic trial in which a Google lawyer identified the practice of copying lawyers on documents as “fake privilege” and seemed rather amused by it. Mr. Walker said he was “disappointed” and “surprised” to hear that term....

> Last month, three advocacy groups, led by the American Economic Liberties Project, asked for Mr. Walker to be investigated by the California State Bar for coaching Google to “engage in widespread and illegal destruction” of documents relevant to federal trials.

That's why they're also suing apple

But there is an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and Microsoft is getting probed by the FTC regarding their cloud business.

Maybe? Any regulation is very welcomed in this area

In order to say Apple is a monopoly you need to define a very narrow market. The search market is obviously relevant and very dominated by Google.

Wouldn't Microsoft be scared to suffer the same faith, if this were to really happen?

I'm sorry, you're alleging that someone who used to work for Microsoft, but doesn't anymore, is ... well, still secretly working for Microsoft? Like, he's a spy inside the DOJ, but you've figured out his clever game? I don't understand.