Google was found to be a monopolist by judge Amit Mehta. Here's The Verge coverage:

A federal judge ruled that Google violated US antitrust law by maintaining a monopoly in the search and advertising markets.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” according to the court’s ruling, which you can read in full at the bottom of this story. “It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”

Judge Amit Mehta’s decision represents a major victory for the Department of Justice, which accused Google of illegally monopolizing the online search market. Still, Mehta did not agree with all of the government’s arguments. For example, he rejected the claim that Google has monopoly power in one specific part of the ads market. He agreed with the government, however, that Google has a monopoly in “general search services” and “general search text advertising.”

It’s not yet clear what this ruling will mean for the future of Google’s business, as this initial finding is only about the company’s liability, not about remedies. Google’s fate will be determined in the next phase of proceedings, which could result in anything from a mandate to stop certain business practices to a breakup of Google’s search business.

Google plans to appeal the ruling, president of global affairs Kent Walker said in a statement. “This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” he said. “As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”

“This landmark decision holds Google accountable,” DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter said in a statement. “It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans.”

DuckDuckGo, whose CEO testified against Google in the trial, applauded the decision, but recognized the fight isn’t over. In a statement, SVP for public affairs Kamyl Bazbaz said, “The journey ahead will be long. As we are seeing in the EU and other places, Google will do anything it can to avoid changing its conduct. However, we know there is a pent up demand for alternatives in search and this ruling will support access to more options.”

Mehta rejected Google’s arguments that its contracts with phone and browser makers like Apple were not exclusionary and therefore shouldn’t qualify it for liability under the Sherman Act. “The prospect of losing tens of billions in guaranteed revenue from Google — which presently come at little to no cost to Apple — disincentivizes Apple from launching its own search engine when it otherwise has built the capacity to do so,” he wrote.

Currently, as revealed in the trial, Google pays a 36% revenue share for queries done through Safari, iOS, iPadOS, and the Mac.

I'll use my best judgement to adjudicate this market considering information in the mainstream media, what people here suggest me, as also public information from courts. I might use market share data from websites, including GS StatsCounter. I might also use the reported click growth reported in Google's financials, and Microsoft reporting. I won't bet.

• No TAC, keep the queries: Google doesn't lose much revenue and click share in queries, but no longer pays Apple, and users keep using Google largely the same way. This could be remedy where the court forces Apple to show a list of search engines, and users choose Google, and Google doesn't pay Apple. Values that aren't substantial compared to the current ~$20B, are also considered No TAC.

• Keep the TAC, keep the queries: status quo.

• Keep the TAC, lose the queries: a scenario where Google pays a commensurate amount of money to appear in the search engine list, together with competitors like Bing and DuckDuckGo, but a substantial number of customers pick alternatives. Obviously Google might pays less money.

• NO TAC, lose the queries: Google doesn't pay Apple and loses the queries, nonetheless. I envision this scenario if Apple launches its own search engine or makes a similar deal with Microsoft for Bing.