Over the past five years, regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have launched the most sweeping antitrust offensive since the breakup of American telephone monopoly AT&T. They have opened cases against Google, Meta, Apple, and Amazon, arguing that these companies stifle competition, and request radical remedies, including forced selloffs.
Yet a reckoning looks unlikely. Recent rulings suggest shifts in digital marketplaces are weakening the antitrust cases. The time-lag between complaint and remedy spans years. In between, new competitors and technologies have emerged, most importantly in artificial intelligence.
Start with Meta. In December 2020, the US government alleged that the social media company’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 stifled competition and requested divestitures. US federal judge James Boasberg disagreed. He ruled that Meta does not currently hold monopoly power in social networking, citing the rapid rise of rival platforms such as TikTok and YouTube.
Continue with Google. In 2020, the US Department of Justice sued the company for maintaining a search monopoly through default deals on browsers and mobile devices. Judge Amit Mehta found that Google illegally monopolized search. Yet Judge Mehta backed away from demanding that the search company be broken up by selling its Chrome browser.
AI shaped his decision. OpenAI and others have built powerful chatbots that threaten to replace traditional search engines with immediate answers. Google itself has embedded AI at the top of its search results, and Judge Mehta wrote in his ruling that the emergence of generative AI “changed the course of this case.”
Apple’s battle began in 2020 when Epic Games challenged its App Store commissions and steering policies. Four years later, the Justice Department, supported by 16 states, accused the company of running an illegal “walled garden” over the smartphone market. In April 2025, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple must stop collecting a commission on some app sales. Apple appealed, and in December 2025, a court reversed parts of the previous court order, ruling them overbroad.
Litigation also remains open against Amazon. Two years ago, the FTC and 17 states accused the e-commerce leader of self-preferencing, forcing disadvantageous fees and fulfillment/Prime obligations on sellers.
Across the Atlantic, the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) imposes structural obligations on designated “gatekeepers,” and has already fined Apple €500 million over its App store commission and €200 million over its plan to force users to either consent to personalized ads or pay a subscription fee. European regulators have launched new investigations into cloud computing services, including Amazon Web Services and Microsoft.
All told, the EU today is pursuing a total of 45 antitrust cases against US tech, which in some cases leave open the possibility of breakups. It fined Google €2.95 billion this year for abusing its monopoly in AdTech, stipulating that its concerns could only be resolved if Google ceded control of its market-leading ad tech tools. Google responded with product and tech changes that would not require divestitures and is appealing. A similar case over Google AdTech is taking place in the US, where Google has made a similar offer that falls short of requested sell-offs.
Although these cases will take years to resolve and the ultimate outcome remains uncertain, the overall trend looks clear: US judges and European regulators remain reluctant to force structural separations. Antitrust enforcement must contend with market evolution that moves faster than litigation. What is dominant at the time of an acquisition or lawsuit may no longer be dominant by the time of trial and verdict.
Both regulators and courts are factoring the role of innovation, and are increasingly aware that AI is undermining the so-called monopolies regulators seek to unwind. Instead of breakups, behavior-based remedies — data-sharing mandates, fair default rules, prohibition of exclusivity — are emerging as more realistic options.
Looking back, landmark antitrust cases — such as the breakup of Standard Oil Company and AT&T — reshaped critical industries at times when technological trajectories were relatively stable. In contrast, today’s digital sector reorganizes on much shorter time spans.
After US judges ruled in 2000 that Microsoft used its Windows monopoly to stifle competition by bunding Internet Explorer, the initial court order to break up the company was overturned on appeal. A settlement imposed restrictions on Microsoft’s business practices, while Google, Apple, and others succeeded in breaking the company’s control over Internet browsing and mobile phones.
The current wave of cases looks set to end in a similar fashion. Courts are wary of crafting solutions for markets in flux. Regulators in Washington and Brussels find themselves playing catch-up to innovation – and policy-makers are slow to do anything that could slow innovation. Technology, not regulation, will ultimately decide our digital future.
Elly Rostoum is a Senior Resident Fellow with the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).
Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions expressed on Bandwidth are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
2025 CEPA Forum Tech & Security Conference
Explore the latest from the conference.
