Google heads to court in a landmark trial that puts its search business in the crosshairs. Here's what's at stake.

• Google and the Department of Justice are heading to court in a blockbuster antitrust case.
• It revolves around how Google pays partners to promote its search engine on their products.

Almost three years after the Department of Justice sued Google over claims that it'd illegally maintained a monopoly in search, the tech giant is headed to trial to defend its position.

The DOJ filed a lawsuit against Google in October 2020 that accused it of using "anticompetitive and exclusionary practices" to maintain its online search dominance.

The case has morphed over the years. When the trial kicks off Tuesday, it's set to focus on how Google sparked deals with Apple and other device manufacturers to be their default search engines — and whether doing so was illegal.

This is the most significant trial against a tech giant since the government sued Microsoft in the 1990s, and while Google fought tooth and nail to keep much of its submitted evidence redacted and under seal, there could be explosive revelations over the slated 10 weeks.

"This is a backwards-looking case at a time of unprecedented innovation, including breakthroughs in AI, new apps and new services, all of which are creating more competition and more options for people than ever before," Google's president of global affairs, Kent Walker, said in a statement.

Harry First, a professor at NYU Law School who focuses on antitrust, says he believes the DOJ has a "pretty strong" case against Google but there will be big hurdles to proving liability.

What will the trial focus on?

The trial will center on whether Google quashed competition by paying Apple (an estimated $8 billion to $12 billion a year) and other companies to be the default search provider on their devices and deterred users from accessing rival services in the process.

It also accuses Google of illegally requiring its Android device partners to preinstall other Google apps, such as Maps and Gmail, something the company has denied.

The case could have been broader. In December 2020, 38 states and districts filed a follow-on lawsuit to the DOJ's that made additional accusations of anticompetitive behavior, including that Google had disadvantaged rivals like Yelp and Tripadvisor by lowering their visibility in search results. That lawsuit eventually merged with the DOJ suit.

Last month, Judge Amit Mehta, who is overseeing the case, threw out some key claims brought by the states, including that Google's design of search results harms rivals.

Two core claims will proceed: that Google harmed competitors through "exclusionary" agreements with Apple and other device partners, and that it acted anticompetitively with its search ad tool Search Ads 360.

Did Google make exclusive deals?

Much of the trial's outcome will be predicated on whether the deals Google made to promote its search engine excluded healthy competition.

Google has said its deals with partners like Apple aren't exclusive and argues users have the choice to switch from the default search engine to a competitor.

"People don't use Google because they have to — they use it because they want to. It's easy to switch your default search engine — we're long past the era of dial-up internet and CD-ROMs," Google's Walker said in a statement.

The judge is interested in whether Google is the "de facto exclusive," or whether it made certain choices that reduced the number of users switching from Google to other search providers, even if they could switch.

Google will need to go further than proving competition is a few clicks away.

"A key point of discussion will be to what degree of choice users actually have, and is the pattern of choice that sends them to Google in large numbers denying them functionality of other products, or simply a reflection of superior performance?" said William E. Kovacic, a professor of law and policy and George Washington University.

Several antitrust experts said that even if it's simple for users to switch to another engine, if most users don't, that could strengthen the government's case.

"It is easy to switch, but if 90% of people just never ever switch, never think about it, then I think the government has a decent argument that paying for default can be considered paying for exclusivity," said David Olson, an associate professor at Boston College focusing on antitrust law. "Then it looks just like Microsoft. And then I think the government could win."

How do the AI wars affect this?

The online search landscape has shifted since 2020 thanks to artificial intelligence.

While Google has publicly played down the threat of OpenAI and Microsoft on its business, don't be surprised if you hear Google singing a different tune in court, as it points out how the AI boom proves the existence of fierce competition.

Still, recent data suggests even an AI-turbocharged Bing has barely dented Google's search stronghold.

Who could testify in court?

Mehta recently denied Apple's bid to not have its executives wheeled in for testimony, Reuters reported. Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of services; John Giannandrea, the company's senior vice president of machine learning and AI strategy; and Adrian Perica, the vice president of corporate development, may now be called to testify in court.

As for Google, we expect to see some top chiefs called forward, including CEO Sundar Pichai and some senior vice presidents.

What happens if Google loses?

This is one area where there's a big question mark.

A win for the DOJ could force Google to change its contracts with Apple. It could also mirror a European Union decision to make Google give Android users a choice of search engine when they first set up their devices.

Some experts floated a worst-case scenario for Google in which it's barred from bidding for the default position on devices while competitors still can, potentially resulting in increased market share of those rivals.

A structural breakup of Google could be a bit extreme given the scope of the case, but it could apply to the search advertising component of the case, Olson said. The company offered to spin off parts of its ad-tech business into a separate company in response to a different DOJ lawsuit, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.

Can I watch or listen to the trial?

Unfortunately not. Mehta denied a public audio feed of the trial. Those who wish to listen must attend in person.