I have a big question about technology and security for byte-sized diplomacy. Send it through here.

In my work, I’m often asked: Can governments really do anything to limit the power of big tech companies? A recent U.S. district court ruling that found Google violated antitrust law is a good time to revisit the issue.

I argue that governments need to address technology problems – such as threats to national security, non-competitive behavior, social harm, data protection violations or digital service standards – as individual problems, rather than focusing on the behavior of Pursue And Individuals.

Governments need to come together to rebalance their power and focus on enforcing existing laws. That is slowly happening. This latest ruling is the first major decision in one of several antitrust cases brought by the U.S. government against the big tech companies.

On August 5, the US court found that Google had a monopoly and that the company had acted in an anti-competitive manner to maintain that monopoly. The ruling bears similarities to a landmark case against Microsoft 25 years ago. It revolves around Google’s monopoly on search and text ads, and shows how Google pays billions (mostly to Apple and Samsung) for exclusive default search distribution on phones and browsers.

You probably didn’t need a judge to tell you that Google has built an internet search empire. In Australia, Google’s mobile search market share remained around 98 percent from 2021 to 2024, and globally it is over 90 percent.

Regardless of an appeal, this US case could have significant international implications. In Australia, the competition authority already announced earlier this year that Google had engaged in similar practices and accepted commitments from telecommunications companies Telstra, Optus and TPG not to renew or enter into such default browser agreements with Google for Android devices.

In the Google case, thousands of pages of internal documents were brought to light that shed light on the extent of the surveillance that Google carries out – and wants to carry out.

Given the global nature of these services, a government’s ability to get a grip on Big Tech is limited. But efforts are growing, as evidenced by the recent row over a court case against X over video footage of an attack in Sydney and various comments by the Prime Minister, such as calling Elon Musk an “arrogant billionaire who thinks he’s above the law.” In the UK, social media companies have been blamed in recent days for spreading material that fueled violent unrest.

While such statements are politically successful and support popular views, they have no real consequences for technology companies, so it is more important to see action.

Civil litigation to protect personal data is ongoing. In July, the Australian government also introduced a bill that would impose a minimum tax on multinational corporations and a task force to combat foreign influence in technology.

At AUSMIN talks last week, Australia and the United States signed an agreement to combat the manipulation of information by foreign states. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has extensive powers to protect Australians from online harm and is always at the forefront of regulatory action.

These cases also bring important internal evidence to the public. In the US, the Google case released thousands of pages of internal documents that shed light on the extent of the surveillance that Google does – and wants to do. It shows how Google views privacy, wants to maintain its monopoly on search and advertising, sees subscription models (such as news) as a constraint on its business model, and sees privacy as a competitive threat. This information will help regulators around the world.

The documents also help align internal policy changes with public impacts by leveraging Google’s own views, strategies and data. In 2016, Google changed a single line of its privacy policy, resulting in the most significant strengthening of its surveillance machinery in a decade. It did so by merging users’ anonymous browsing behavior with personally identifiable information and search activity, and creating a single profile/cookie for ads and user accounts. Internally, the project was apparently called “Narnia 2.”

We have witnessed the dominance of big tech companies in almost every way imaginable, from search, social media and digital platforms to the way we are identified and tracked online, through data trading, intelligence work and surveillance. Big tech companies can even influence a state’s ability to wage war and how services are accessed during a conflict.

Anyone hoping that the Google case will be the beginning of the breakup of the big tech companies will be disappointed. If the case stands up on appeal, the method of paying for exclusive distribution will likely change. In the short term, this could help Google, given its popularity and dominance as a search engine. But since data is at stake, significantly limiting individual companies’ access to personal, behavioral and financial information, as well as browsing history, will, over time, limit parts of the big tech companies’ business model.

I am mostly optimistic about our ability to regulate when technologies pose significant social harm and security threats. However, time is of the essence. I hope this case – like the CrowdStrike outage – underscores the need to standardize the delivery of digital services. I am most concerned about the less visible forms of discrimination, the resilience of our information ecosystem, and the insidious uses of social media, from algorithmic curation to misinformation, disinformation and foreign interference.