The recent US court ruling against Google, led by district judge Amit Mehta, has reignited the debate on Big Tech monopolies. The court determined that Google unlawfully leveraged its search engine dominance to stifle competition. While the trial remedies are expected in 2025, many view this ruling as a pivotal step towards breaking up Big Tech’s stranglehold on innovation and competition. However, such a perspective oversimplifies Big Tech’s complex dominance, ignoring a crucial truth: dismantling these companies alone won’t free consumers from their grip, as the chains of convenience and habit are far stronger than the walls of monopoly.
Big Tech’s power isn’t solely due to innovation; it’s also a reflection of regulatory complacency and political manoeuvring. Governments, often complicit, both fuel Big Tech’s influence and present themselves as regulating these giants for the public’s benefit. Rethinking regulation for tech monopolies requires more than political will or regulatory action—it demands fostering true competition that can not only match Big Tech’s innovations but also reshape consumer behaviour and trust.
READ I Sugary infant food: Govts must protect children from commercial interests
Google’s dominance: Convenience over monopoly
Consider Google’s place in our lives. With 90% of the U.S. search market, its dominance is not merely about monopolistic control; it’s built on habit and integration. Services like Gmail and Google Maps are deeply embedded in billions of daily routines. Even if regulators dismantle the company, will users abandon the convenience and reliability of a system they trust? This dependence reflects not just monopoly but the grip of familiarity and ease, making Google an irreplaceable part of many people’s digital lives.
Once pioneers, Big Tech companies now often act as gatekeepers, curtailing the potential for new breakthroughs. In monopolised markets, innovation slows, and startups are either acquired or crushed before they can disrupt the status quo. Google’s acquisition spree—over 200 companies in the last two decades—illustrates this trend. Many of these acquisitions could have evolved into viable competitors, pushing the market forward. Instead, the potential for greater choice, lower prices, and new technologies is often smothered under Big Tech’s shadow.
Are consumers truly benefiting?
Proponents of Google argue that its massive resources enable it to offer an unmatched suite of products. Google Search is celebrated for its speed and accuracy, and tools like Gmail and Google Maps are integral to millions worldwide. This ecosystem’s convenience makes it hard to imagine life without Google. Many might ask, why disrupt a service that works so well?
However, this view overlooks the long-term costs of unchecked dominance. While Google’s integrated ecosystem currently benefits consumers, the absence of competition stifles incentives to innovate beyond the minimum necessary to maintain market position. With such market power, Google can influence advertising prices, limit consumer choices, and compromise privacy protections. A future with more competition could lead to innovations that better serve evolving needs—offering alternatives that prioritise privacy or cater to specific niches, thus placing genuine control in consumers’ hands.
The true issue lies not in Big Tech’s size alone but in the lack of viable alternatives. Historically, competition has driven innovation, compelling companies to develop superior products and deliver greater value. Yet in the tech sector, competition frequently leads to consolidation rather than progress. Google’s pattern of acquisitions has largely eliminated threats rather than out-innovating them, resulting in a market with limited diversity that weakens both innovation and consumer choice.
Breaking up Big Tech: A symbolic victory?
Dismantling a company like Google might seem like a regulatory win, but the reality is more complex. Consumers, accustomed to Google’s seamless services, are unlikely to switch to alternatives even if they exist. People are creatures of habit; for all the criticism of Big Tech’s power, many choose Google because it delivers efficiently. Convenience, trust, and habit, more than monopolistic structures, are what keep users loyal.
If regulators are serious about fostering true competition, they must go beyond dismantling tech giants. Building a competitive market demands creating an environment that supports serious contenders—companies capable of not only scaling but also addressing users’ needs for convenience, trust, and integrated services. This requires structural changes that go beyond punitive measures: governments must lower entry barriers, incentivise innovation, and ensure smaller companies have access to the data and infrastructure needed to grow.
Big Tech’s dominance is reinforced by a feedback loop of data and user trust, enhancing products and cementing their lead. Breaking up these companies without addressing data dominance will likely result in new monopolies emerging in different forms. Therefore, the regulatory focus should shift towards fostering competition that challenges Big Tech’s entrenched practices. This involves not just dismantling monopolies but creating an environment where innovation thrives and alternatives can genuinely vie for consumer trust.
Ending monopolies is not enough; we need to envision new ecosystems where alternatives can flourish. Real freedom from Big Tech’s grip won’t come from symbolic breakups. Instead, it requires building a world where viable alternatives to Big Tech are as accessible and essential as the air we breathe. Until governments and policymakers develop strategies to make this a reality, breaking up Big Tech remains a symbolic gesture, insufficient to liberate consumers from their grip.
Srinath Sridharan is a strategic counsel with 25 years experience with leading corporates across diverse sectors including automobiles, e-commerce, advertising and financial services. He understands and ideates on intersection of finance, digital, contextual-finance, consumer, mobility, Urban transformation, and ESG. Actively engaged across growth policy conversations and public policy issues.