At issue in the Google antitrust case are significant monetary sums and the manner in which people utilize the internet.

In the Google antitrust matter, the potential outcome involves massive financial sums (as well as the means we interact with the internet).

Safari may be set to use a different search engine, but the majority stick with Google. This shouldn't come as a surprise since Google provides Apple with huge sums of money each month.

By May 2021, Google was handing over more than a billion dollars to Apple monthly, as per the US government. For 2022, this payment could total up to $20 billion.

These astonishing amounts were brought to light during an ongoing antitrust lawsuit file against Google. This lawsuit could potentially change the way millions of Americans search for information online and, according to some, influence the heated competition in artificial intelligence.

On Thursday, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) delivered their final strike against Google's monopoly over online searches, a case that dates back to the Trump administration. The courts are trying to prove Google's guilty of dominating the search engine business through bribes like the ones given to Apple.

The trial, which runs from Thursday to Friday, aims to convince District Judge Amit Mehta that Google unlawfully controlled the online search market by making it the default on numerous devices and browsers. The judge is expected to deliver a decision later in the year after sitting through a 10-week trial last fall that was largely closed to the public.

The verdict may hold important repercussions across the tech industry, setting a benchmark not only for Google's payments to Apple, wireless carriers, and other device makers, but for the long lineup of tech antitrust cases awaiting court hearings.

In the case, the government believes Google used contracts to create a monopoly by making its search engine the default option on millions of devices worldwide. In this process, they argue, Google gathered more data on user searches that further refined their product while stifling fair competition. During the trial, Microsoft informed the court that Google tried to convert its search data advantage into an artificial intelligence edge by training its models on huge search query volumes that no other company has access to.

Google, on the other hand, states that their search engine's superiority drives their selection, not anticompetitive behavior. Additionally, Google claims that their search assists their Android operating system, which rivals Apple. Google also asserts that it was up to Apple to choose a different default search partner.

The judge questioned Google's approach during the closing arguments. If Google's search is genuinely better than the competition and effortlessly replaced, then why spend billions annually to be the default choice everywhere? He quoted, "If Google's product is indeed better than the competition, and if it really is simple to switch to another search engine, then why spend hundreds of billions a year to be the default search provider everywhere?"

Google's legal representative, John Schmidtlein, maintained that US antitrust laws cater to the competitive process, not competitors.

It's unknown when Judge Mehta will unveil his decision after hearing both sides' arguments this week. However, if he rules in the US government's favor and founds Google at fault, it would lead to an additional proceeding to tackle potential penalties Google may incur.