Google Monopoly Case: 'Pay for Half' Proposal Targets Search Default Placement
A landmark antitrust case against Google in the US continues to unfold as appeals are made regarding the remedies ordered by Judge Amit Mehta. The central question revolves around whether these remedies effectively address Google's illegal monopoly in search or merely allow it to continue paying billions of dollars for default search placement.
In August 2024, Judge Mehta found Google liable for maintaining a monopoly in general search services in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. One key aspect of this finding was that Google made multi-billion-dollar payments to channel partners - Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, and others - to secure default search engine placement on nearly all mobile devices and most desktops.
However, when it came to remedies in 2025, Judge Mehta permitted Google to continue paying for default placement with minimal restrictions. This decision was met with criticism from the Department of Justice and 35 states, who argued that it failed to limit Google's ability to pay for placement, a core part of the liability finding.
In response, Alissa Cooper, Fiona Scott Morton, and Nick Jacobson proposed an alternative remedy known as 'Pay for Half'. This plan limits Google's share of devices for which it can pay for default search status and the revenue it can pay its channel partners for that status. According to their proposal, Google would be allowed to pay for up to 50% of devices in any given product line.