Google, once a pioneer of internet freedom and innovation, is now facing mounting legal scrutiny that paints a starkly different picture of the tech giant.
A massive £5 billion ($6.6 billion) class action lawsuit in the UK accuses the company of exploiting its dominance in the online search market to stifle competition and overcharge advertisers, Reuters news report said. The allegations highlight a disturbing pattern of behavior: leveraging market control not to enhance user experience, but to create a closed ecosystem that benefits Google alone.
According to the claim, Google manipulated the digital landscape by striking deals with smartphone manufacturers and Apple to ensure that Google Search and Chrome are the default choices — effectively sidelining competitors before users even had a chance to consider alternatives. These contracts weren’t about offering the best services but about crushing any potential threats to Google’s supremacy.
Leading smartphone suppliers are Samsung (20 percent share), Apple (18 percent), Xiaomi (14 percent), Vivo (8 percent), and Oppo (8 percent) in the first-quarter of 2025, according to Canalys. Search engines of most of these smartphone brands – excluding Apple — are powered by Google.
As of January 2025, Google maintained its dominance in the global desktop search market with a share of approximately 78.83 percent. Bing followed with 12.23 percent, while Yahoo held a smaller portion at 3.07 percent.
Google has also dominated the global mobile search engine market with a 93.82 percent share. Yandex followed with 2.5 percent, while Baidu and Yahoo! each held less than 1 percent of the market. Google does not reveal the size of its revenue from the UK digital market.
Perhaps most concerning is the accusation that Google skewed its own platform to give preferential treatment to its advertising services. This meant businesses had little choice but to play by Google’s rules, paying inflated prices just to be seen. For many companies, especially smaller ones, this has meant navigating a pay-to-play system where visibility and viability come at an ever-increasing cost.
While Google dismisses the case as “speculative,” the backlash from regulators and businesses globally suggests a deeper, more systemic issue. When a company controls 90 percent of the search market and hundreds of thousands of businesses rely on its platform, even subtle manipulations can have massive economic consequences.
Baburajan Kizhakedath
