Google has spent 2025 and 2026 navigating two major US antitrust rulings that go to the heart of its business model. Courts found Google illegally monopolised parts of the ad-tech market, and in September 2026 a judge declined to force a breakup of that ad-tech business despite the monopoly finding, opting for behavioural remedies instead. In a separate search-monopoly case, courts have similarly favoured behavioural remedies over a full breakup, though Google is appealing aspects of the rulings. At the same time, Google has rolled out AI Overviews and Gemini-powered search features that are reshaping how people find information online, a shift Google itself is driving even as it tries to preserve the advertising-funded model regulators say is anticompetitive.
The central marketing question for Google is how to position itself as an open, innovative AI leader while regulators and courts continue to describe its core search and advertising business as an unlawfully maintained monopoly.
Strengths
Overwhelming default position in search
Google continues to handle the large majority of global search queries, a scale advantage that gives it unmatched data for training AI models and unmatched reach for its advertising business.
Avoided the most severe structural remedies
Despite monopoly findings in both its search and ad-tech cases, courts have so far opted for behavioural remedies (such as data-sharing requirements and restrictions on exclusive default-placement deals) rather than ordering a breakup of Google’s search or ad-tech businesses, preserving its integrated structure for now.
Fast, well-resourced AI product rollout
Google’s Gemini models and AI Overviews give it a credible position in the generative AI shift, backed by significant infrastructure investment and deep integration across Search, Android and Workspace.
Weaknesses
Confirmed monopolist status in two separate rulings
US courts have found Google to hold an illegal monopoly in both general search and in parts of the online advertising technology stack, findings that materially affect how the brand is perceived by regulators, competitors and the public, regardless of the specific remedies ordered.
Continued legal and regulatory overhang
Google is appealing aspects of the search and ad-tech rulings, meaning both cases will continue generating headlines and uncertainty for years rather than being resolved by the initial rulings.
Tension between AI Overviews and publisher relationships
AI-generated answers that reduce the need for users to click through to underlying websites have drawn criticism from publishers and content creators whose traffic and revenue depend on search referrals, a relationship central to Google’s own search ecosystem.
Opportunities
Defining the AI-search category on its own terms
As the incumbent search leader, Google is positioned to shape how AI-assisted search evolves as a product category, rather than simply reacting to challengers, provided it can manage the transition without undermining its advertising model.
Diversifying beyond search-advertising dependence
Growth in Google Cloud and AI infrastructure services offers a path to reduce reliance on search advertising, which now sits under closer regulatory scrutiny than at any point in the company’s history.
Rebuilding publisher and developer trust
Proactive moves on revenue-sharing or attribution for AI-generated answers could help Google address publisher concerns before they escalate into further regulatory pressure.
Threats
AI-native search competitors
Newer AI-first search and answer products are competing directly for query volume that has historically gone to Google, particularly among users who prefer conversational, synthesised answers over a list of links.
Escalating global regulatory action
Beyond the US rulings, the EU and other jurisdictions continue to investigate and penalise Google’s search and advertising practices, adding further compliance costs and behavioural constraints.
Reputational erosion from repeated monopoly findings
Being twice found to hold an illegal monopoly in major US court rulings creates a cumulative reputational cost that goes beyond any single case’s specific remedies, potentially affecting brand trust among advertisers, publishers and regulators evaluating future deals.
Applying the analysis
Illustrative recommendation: Google should pair its AI-search rollout with visible, concrete steps to address publisher and advertiser concerns raised in the antitrust rulings, using compliance with the behavioural remedies as an opportunity to demonstrate good-faith change rather than treating it as a constraint to be minimised.
Discuss and apply
1. How should a company respond, from a brand perspective, to being found an illegal monopolist in two separate major antitrust rulings within the same period?
2. What risks does Google’s AI Overviews feature create for its relationship with the publishers and websites that search advertising has traditionally relied on?
Suggested answer guidance
Strong answers will treat the search and ad-tech rulings as related but distinct brand challenges, and will consider how Google’s AI strategy could either compound regulatory concerns (further concentrating power) or help address them (creating new value beyond the contested core business).
Compare this case with our Amazon SWOT analysis. Sources are linked beside the relevant evidence; recommendations and discussion activities are Marketing Teacher’s educational analysis.
