Google broke the law. It's paid no price. Congress can change that.

Nearly two years ago, a federal court ruled that Google illegally monopolized search. The judge was specific about how: Google didn't win by building a better product. It paid billions of dollars to be the default everywhere, on your phone and in your web browser, such that most Americans never actively choose their search engine at all.

That ruling should have been a turning point. Instead, nothing has changed.

Getting away with a monopoly.

The court's decision was a diagnosis, not the cure. The remedies ordered last year fall dramatically short of what needs to happen to level the playing field in search. And Google has appealed them anyway. So too has the Justice Department, seeking the stronger fixes it originally asked for. The strongest remedies haven't taken effect and may not for years to come. Meanwhile, the court-appointed technical committee charged with putting change into practice is only just getting up and running. The result is a company operating exactly as it did before being declared a monopolist while running the same exact playbook that was ruled to be illegal. This is the definition of getting away with it.

And the harm compounds each day. Google's vice grip on search was never only about defaults. It rests on two engines. The first is distribution, or the paid defaults that the court condemned. The second, less visible, is scale. Because Google sees far more searches than anyone else, it trains its systems on data no rival can touch. At trial, an analysis of 3.7 million unique search phrases over a single week found that 93% were seen only by Google. More searches produce better results, which draw more users, which produce still more searches. Every day the remedies are delayed, that flywheel spins faster and the gap a court has already ruled illegal grows wider. And the same flywheel is now spinning up in AI, threatening to rig the next era of search before it starts.

Congress doesn't have to wait.

It doesn't have to be this way. A solution now exists in Congress. Introduced this week by Senator Klobuchar and Senator Schmitt, the SEARCH Act – Securing Enforcement of Americans' Right to Competition at Home – would end Google's waiting games. It also directly addresses both of Google's engines of monopoly at the same time.

On distribution, Google could no longer pay to be the preset default, nor wire its own search into Chrome and Android instead of letting you choose. People would choose for themselves and could switch in a single step, including straight from a competitor's own website or app.

Scale is the harder problem, and the SEARCH Act proposes to do the thing that actually closes the gap. Google would have to share search results and de-identified data with rivals. This would let new startups, AI companies and existing search engines compete on a level playing field for your loyalty on privacy, design, and overall experience.

This bipartisan proposal would codify the same package of remedies that the Department of Justice and a coalition of 49 states and territories fought for in court, and its rules would apply to AI as well as search. DuckDuckGo is proud to support the SEARCH Act. We urge Congress to pass it without delay.

Endorsements and additional information

The text of S. 5007 is available to read here. The SEARCH Act is endorsed by the Bull Moose Project, Digital Progress Institute, and Public Knowledge.

Statements of support:

In U.S. v. Google, the court found Google had illegally used its search monopoly to lock out search defaults from competitors, preventing them from operating at the scale needed to be optimally competitive. The SEARCH Act proposes to finally do something to fix this broken search market. DuckDuckGo is grateful to Senator Klobuchar and Senator Schmitt for their leadership on this bill and for taking on a fight that's long overdue. This is what a serious, bipartisan fix looks like, and we're proud to support it.

— Gabriel Weinberg, Founder and CEO, DuckDuckGo

The courts have done what they can with the tools they have, and it isn't enough. Even after a federal judge found that Google unlawfully monopolizes the search market, the remedies that followed relied on behavioral fixes rather than the kind of structural relief that actually restores competition, proving that antitrust law as written wasn't built for markets like this one. Congress can't keep leaving it to judges to improvise solutions case by case; lawmakers need to give the courts clear, modern guidance for dealing with dominant digital platforms, and DPI urges Congress to pass the SEARCH Act.

— Joel Thayer, President, Digital Progress Institute

Google's motto used to be, "Don't be evil." They dumped that years ago, instead choosing to eliminate competition through self-preferencing and exclusivity agreements. Using their browser, Google Chrome, and their search engine - the main venue through which millions ofAmericans find information - Google picked winners and losers while also giving preference to themselves, including their AI, Gemini.  

The SEARCH Act will hold Google and other future monopolists accountable by building upon the proposed remedies from U.S. v. Google, opening up search, advertising, and even internet browsers as areas of competition and innovation instead of control by one behemoth. We commend Senators Schmitt and Klobuchar for introducing this bill, and encourage quick and speedy passage.

— Aiden Buzzetti, Founder and President, Bull Moose Project

The Google search case shows why antitrust enforcement and legislation must work together. Courts must stop unlawful conduct and restore competition in the market Google monopolized. Google’s effort to overturn the remedies should fail, and the states are right to seek stronger relief. But litigation takes years, often after monopoly power has become deeply entrenched. The SEARCH Act would establish clear, forward-looking rules for the largest search platforms, including restrictions on payments for preferential treatment and exclusive distribution arrangements. Antitrust remedies can reopen the search market. The SEARCH Act can help keep it open.

— Patrick Gallaher, Senior Policy Advocate, Public Knowledge