The United States Ministry of Justice (DoJ) recently ruled against Google twice: in August 2024 to monopolize the search engine and the research advertising markets, and in April 2025 for its digital advertising network being an illegal monopoly.
The proposed GM remedies potentially include Google forcing to sell its chrome browser or parts of the Android operating system. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has an ongoing antitrust trial against Meta (Facebook), alleging that the company illegally maintains a monopoly on personal social networks thanks to its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp and the imposition of anti -competitive conditions on software developers. The FTC seeks to relax these acquisitions.
The EU was also very active in its antitrust exam by Google and Meta, emitting substantial fines. In November 2024, the EU inflicted a fine on Meta for having linked its Facebook service for advertising service classified online to its social network, which was considered an unjust advantage. More recently, Meta has been condemned to a fine for having violated the law on digital markets concerning its model of “remuneration or consent” for access without advertising to Facebook and Instagram, because the EU has argued that it does not provide users with a real free choice concerning their data.
The approaches adopted by the United States and the EU to contest the monopolies of Google and Meta differ. The EU has adopted a broader and more interventionist approach, illustrated by its history of antitrust control against Google and its desire to issue heavy fines. On the other hand, the United States has historically focused more closely on the demonstrable damage to consumers and have been more hesitant to pursue structural remedies such as ruptures.
However, the increase in the examination suggests a potential change towards a more assertive position. But the recent dismissal by President Trump of two FTC commissioners in March could indicate efforts to limit this in -depth examination. These divergent paths reflect differences in legal frameworks, regulatory cultures, specific market concerns and political priorities.