In the midst of the largest U.S. antitrust trial in 25 years, government regulators are aiming to curb Google‘s dominance in the online search arena, potentially leading to significant shifts in how we access information on the internet.

As the 10-week trial, investigating Google’s business practices approaches its midway point, the outcome remains uncertain. The decision lies with U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who must determine whether Google has operated an illegal monopoly in the world of online search.

If Judge Mehta rules against Google, it could usher in a new era of online possibilities for consumers and businesses, opening the door to competition and innovation. Luther Lowe, Senior Vice President of Public Policy at Yelp, suggests that such a ruling could compel Google to allow more startups and third-party competitors to challenge its dominance, ultimately leading to higher-quality online services.

Google’s search engine, renowned for its quick and accurate results, has achieved its massive market share through technological excellence. Additionally, Google pays billions annually to ensure that its search engine is the default choice on popular smartphones and web browsers. While users can change their settings to use a different search engine, few bother with the cumbersome process, giving Google a significant advantage.

The heart of the Justice Department’s case against Google revolves around these payments for preeminent search placement, which include an estimated $15 to $20 billion annually to Apple alone. If the judge rules against Google, these agreements might be prohibited.

The most likely remedy in the U.S. would be to require smartphones and web browsers to offer a choice of different search engines during the setup process. This approach has already been implemented in Europe, but Google remains a popular choice.

This loyalty to Google could be attributed to its reputation for being the best search engine, as Google claims, or it might be because users simply trust the brand more than alternatives like Microsoft‘s Bing or privacy-focused DuckDuckGo. Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella, argued that Google has a hypnotic hold on users, emphasizing the importance of default settings in changing search behavior.

Florian Schaub, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, suggests that a fair outcome would be a blanket ban on all default agreements between companies, introducing more neutrality and giving consumers genuine choices.

During the trial, Apple executive Eddy Cue defended their use of Google as the preferred search engine, citing the best experience for their customers. If Apple is barred from using Google as the default search engine, there’s speculation that Apple, with its vast resources, might develop its own search technology.

However, a ban on default search agreements could have unintended consequences, potentially raising prices on popular products that were previously subsidized by Google.

In the event of Google losing default agreements, they might continue to dominate the search market if users actively choose it, while also having more resources to invest in other areas.

While the trial primarily focuses on Google’s search engine, its outcome could have far-reaching implications for the tech industry. If Mehta decides that all default settings are anti-competitive and outlaws them, it could affect not just Google but also Apple, potentially leading to a new legal battle over digital dominance and consumer choices.