Google needs to get back to doing no evil.

Today, Google finds itself at the center of a historic antitrust challenge, a legal and philosophical battle that could reshape how technology giants operate. While critics argue that Google has monopolized digital search and advertising, the company stands as a champion of true innovation, providing amazing tools that have revolutionized how we access information, connect, and conduct business. But even the brightest stars cast shadows sometimes, and Google’s transformation of search into a "pay-to-find" tool raises valid concerns about fairness in the digital economy. Honestly, Google search is now doing evil (not intentionally) and completely goes against the founding tenants of "don't be evil."

Google’s Defense: Innovation at Scale

At its heart, Google’s argument is compelling: its dominance in search isn’t about forcing anyone’s hand—it’s about delivering an outstanding product. Let’s be real, Google Search has been, and continues to be, an incredible tool. Billions of people use it daily, not out of obligation, but because it consistently provides fast, accurate, and genuinely useful results. It’s a fantastic product, plain and simple. Should we really criticize a company for excelling at what it does best?

Google’s investments in AI, machine learning, and natural language processing have transformed search into something much more than a directory—it’s like a personal assistant, capable of understanding and even anticipating your needs. And let’s face it, who doesn’t love the convenience of saying, “Hey Google!” to settle debates, find answers, or navigate the world? Beyond search, Google’s ecosystem of free tools—Gmail, Maps, Google Drive, and Android—seamlessly integrates into the lives of billions, boosting productivity and convenience like no other. Few companies have democratized access to information and technology on such a scale. In many ways, Google has made life better for everyone who touches its platform, and that’s something worth defending.

The Pay-to-Play Problem

But here’s the problem: the same powerhouse that made Google the leader in search has also fostered practices that feel increasingly unfair—and, frankly, kind of evil. Search, which used to be an open door to the web for everyone, now feels more like a toll road where only the highest bidders get to the front of the line. The organic search results people trust for being unbiased and based on merit have been pushed aside by paid ads, featured snippets, and paid search placements that favor big corporations with big budgets.

In short, Google has turned search into a "pay-to-play" system, where visibility goes to whoever pays and the best visibility going to those who pay the most. What used to be a reliable, neutral utility now feels like a business transaction. Even worse, it seems like this favoritism is creeping into AI-powered responses. I can’t prove it yet, but it feels like the answers you get are increasingly shaped by who paid for the outcome. If true, this undermines trust in both search and AI—and risks turning Google's biggest strengths into its biggest weakness. Can you trust a tool whose motives are massive profits versus being a utility for the good of all mankind? That's the big question.

For small businesses, niche publishers, and startups, this dynamic is devastating and stifling competition. Companies without massive advertising budgets struggle to gain visibility, even if they offer superior products or services. The era of “just create great content, and they will come” is largely over.

Worse, these practices undermine trust in Google’s core product. When users suspect that their search results are more about who paid than what’s relevant, Google risks alienating the very people who made it a household name.

Where does Google go from here?

Google’s challenge is to reconcile its dual identities: an innovator shaping the future and a business protecting its profits. The antitrust scrutiny presents an opportunity—not just to defend past actions but to set a new standard for fairness in search.

Here’s what I would do if I were Google:

1. Revitalize Organic Search Google must recommit to elevating organic search results. Make it easier for small businesses and non-commercial content creators to gain visibility without relying solely on ad dollars. A return to merit-based ranking would restore trust and level the playing field.
2. Transparency in Advertising Clearer labeling and separation of paid results from organic ones could help users distinguish between what’s sponsored and what’s not. This small change could go a long way in preserving user trust.
3. Support for Small Businesses Google could offer more affordable advertising options or discounts for small businesses, allowing them to compete fairly with larger entities. Initiatives like this would show a commitment to fostering a healthy digital ecosystem.
4. Competition as a Catalyst Embrace competition instead of stifling it. Healthy competition often drives innovation, and Google, with its resources and talent, is well-positioned to stay ahead without resorting to questionable practices.

What can Google do today to stop being a search monopoly?

To avoid being labeled a monopoly in the ongoing antitrust case, Google must take proactive steps to demonstrate its commitment to fostering a competitive ecosystem. First, the company could provide greater access to its search algorithms for third-party developers and competitors. By offering transparency around how search rankings are determined, Google can mitigate claims that it unfairly prioritizes its own products or advertisers. Additionally, creating an open API for search-related features could allow smaller search engines and specialized platforms to build innovative tools on top of Google’s infrastructure, benefiting the broader digital landscape while maintaining competition.

Google could also address its dominance in digital advertising by offering advertisers more control over how their budgets are spent across platforms. For example, establishing a marketplace where businesses can compare ad performance on Google’s network against other networks—such as Microsoft Ads or social media platforms—would empower advertisers and demonstrate Google’s willingness to compete fairly. Similarly, Google could voluntarily cap the share of advertising revenue it derives from its own platforms, creating opportunities for smaller players to thrive. These actions would not only address regulatory concerns but also reinforce Google’s image as a leader that values innovation over market dominance.

The Stakes Are High

The outcome of Google’s antitrust case won’t just affect the company—it will set the tone for how we regulate innovation across the entire tech industry. This is Google’s moment to show that it’s more than just a business juggernaut. It can prove itself to be a responsible steward of the digital age, balancing its financial goals with the broader interests of fairness and competition.

Defending its innovations is crucial, but Google also needs to address real concerns about how its dominance impacts smaller businesses and users. The company’s legacy won’t just be about its groundbreaking technology—it will also be judged by the fairness and integrity it brings to the table. And here’s the thing: I believe Sundar Pichai is the right person for the job. He’s not only brilliant but, by all accounts, a good man. Yes, there’s enormous pressure to drive revenue, and on paper, turning search into a pay-to-play model may have seemed like the right move for Google’s bottom line. But this is Sundar’s chance to step up, find a better balance, and double down on innovative new products that could offset the revenue lost from loosening the grip on search pay-to-play practices.

The choice is clear: either Sundar takes the lead in addressing these monopoly concerns, or the government will step in and do it for him.

I would love to hear your thoughts?