In August, a federal judge declared Google an illegal monopolist in an antitrust case started by the Trump Administration and carried to conclusion by the Biden Administration, and specifically Jonathan Kanter, who leads the Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust division.

Since the ruling, Kanter, a longtime critic of Google dating back to his days in private law practice, has been taking a victory lap in the media. He even bragged to Politico that the verdict, “goes on the Mount Rushmore of antitrust cases,” likening it to the court-ordered break-up of Standard Oil in the early 20th century.

While the impact of the Google ruling is still unclear and could take months if not years before the dust settles, there are immediate ramifications. Unfortunately, none are positive, especially for American consumers.

For consumers, court-ordered intervention could potentially rob or change the Google search engine and prop up lesser quality alternatives – effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul -- leading to a worrisome economic standard. Google’s search engine is preferred by consumers, perhaps best exemplified by the fact that the most-searched-for-word on Bing is “Google”. Last year, the company’s various digital tools, from Search to YouTube, helped drive $739 billion of economic activity for millions of American businesses, nonprofits, publishers, creators, and developers. With early media reports indicating that breaking off parts of the company is under consideration, it’s no coincidence that many of Google’s competitors – namely Microsoft – testified against them and heralded the decision when it was handed down.

Most alarming about the decision is that the consumer welfare standard - the guiding principle of antitrust policy from both parties dating back a generation - was cast aside. Google earned its spot as the leading search engine because it offered the best product. This principle was not challenged during the course of the trial, and rather reinforced by countless witness testimonies. As reported by CNN , Apple executive John Giannandrea testified that he was opposed to the iPhone maker striking a deal with Bing “largely because Apple’s testing showed Bing to be inferior to Google in most respects, and that replacing Bing as the default would not best serve Apple’s customers.”

A consumer-first antitrust policy has been replaced by an activist-led and aggressive philosophy of big inherently being bad, success treated with skepticism and the long arm of the federal government needing to level the playing field.

To be sure, Kanter and Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), bear the brunt of allegations of overreach in the name of antitrust, but they are far from alone.

Their misguided political views are shared by a coalition of the fringes on the left and the right. For example, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance and U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) all cheered the legal assaults on Google and other tech companies. It’s notable that none of these congressional figures are known for passing constructive legislation, but rather are more in the performance artist category of politics.

In a recent 60 Minutes profile, Chair Khan was gleeful with this type of cult following from “Khanservatives,” as her fans on the right have been dubbed. Yet legislation to change antitrust law hasn’t passed in Congress because of the bipartisan support of the consumer welfare standard.

No matter who wins the Presidency and staffs a new Administration in November, American consumers will be far better served by a return to the 40-year bipartisan consensus policy that existed from the Reagan Administration through the Obama Administration before the Trump Administration started the cases that were handed over to the Khan/Kanter regime that put this misguided effort into overdrive. (Full disclosure, I endorsed Harris’ presidential campaign).

Make no mistake: should opponents of Google have their way, the long-term losers will not be the company or its products, but the American consumers and our standing in the world.