By Ernesto Ángeles. SPR Informa. Mexican Press Agency.
In recent days, the news of the lawsuits against tech giants Google and Meta by the U.S. government has attracted media attention. If these lawsuits succeed in favor of the government, they could potentially transform the business models of both tech giants, deeply affecting the way these companies have operated over the past two decades, as well as the extent of their power over countries and individuals.
These lawsuits represent an opportunity to reconfigure a market that has historically grown thanks to monopolistic and deeply abusive business practices. However, how did we get here? How significant could the impact be if Meta and Google lose these cases? Is such an optimistic scenario even possible?
To begin with, it’s important to understand the basis of the lawsuits: Google is being accused by the U.S. Department of Justice of systematically monopolizing the internet search market through practices such as buying the exclusive rights for its search engine on digital devices globally—a strategy further reinforced on Android devices. Meanwhile, Meta is being targeted by the Federal Trade Commission for strategically acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp to prevent these platforms from competing with Meta, thereby eliminating competition at its roots and creating a monopoly in personal social networks.
Beyond the lawsuits, the issue with these companies isn’t just that they’ve grown so large, but also the functioning of the market that allowed this to happen. Their business model, centered on attention, time consumption, and data extraction, simultaneously turns users into producers, consumers, and products, all for the ultimate goal of generating advertising, products, and personalized (and highly individualistic) experiences in hyper-segmented markets.
This data-extractive and transformative model creates a competitive advantage that feeds and reinforces the monopolistic size these companies have acquired. Not only does no other company currently have access to the volume of data these platforms handle in their respective niches, but businesses such as Meta and Google have also built walls that trap users within closed ecosystems.
Thus, their monopolistic power is not the result of their creators’ innovative genius, but attributable to a market structure that fosters the concentration of power and exclusion of competitors. In the digital economy, the more users a platform has, the more valuable it becomes to other users and the market. This makes it increasingly difficult for a competitor—no matter how good their product is—to even be noticed, because scale is everything in the platform economy.
However, the problem doesn’t stop there, as scalability combines with vertical integration, acquiring other areas related to the provision of their services and the creation of their products. This has led them to control infrastructure across various parts of the process—from operating systems to submarine cables, data centers, and cloud services. As a result, their power is no longer merely commercial; it becomes structural, political, and international.
The cases of Meta and Google are just two examples of this phenomenon, but the problem is global. It is not limited to the United States nor to just a couple of companies. It also involves other players, particularly from China. In this scenario, different regulatory models have developed, with the United States being one of the most permissive and lacking in legislation. However, this could change with the lawsuits against Meta and Google, whose outcomes could break up the businesses of both monopolies and set a precedent that redirects the course of these companies and the digital tech market.
Nevertheless, it will be years before both lawsuits are resolved. There is also the possibility that court rulings could favor the companies, which is not far-fetched considering the efforts by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to please and win the favor of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Furthermore, the lawsuits themselves do not guarantee a solution. They could become long and exhausting processes that end in symbolic agreements. So the outcome remains uncertain. However, the key questions have already been laid out: How far will we allow platforms to grow unchecked? To what extent is extreme power concentration in the digital world compatible with the idea of open and democratic markets? Who should set the rules?
These are not technical questions but political ones—questions about the type of society we want to build in the digital age, about who defines the limits and who controls the resources of cyberspace. If there’s one thing the past two decades have made clear, it’s that without clear boundaries, platforms have no incentive to self-regulate. On the contrary, they create a system of abuse and inequality.
Perhaps the major tech companies will manage to adapt to new rules without losing control. Perhaps governments will succeed in imposing effective restrictions that open the market to new alternatives. Or perhaps, if money and financial power prevail, the current model will persist with a few cosmetic tweaks.
Whatever path is taken, what’s clear is that tech monopolies are no longer just a technical or market issue—they have become one of the most significant (geo)political, economic, and cultural disputes of our time.
Mexican Press Agency is part of ALMA, which is dedicated to news and information about Mexico and Mexicans in the United States and is a fiscally sponsored project of Social Focus, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Redwood City, California.
