Ultimately trust busting comes down to the impact on the consumer. A monopoly is defined as having market power, exclusionary conduct and business justification

Ultimately trust busting comes down to the impact on the consumer. A monopoly is defined as having market power, exclusionary conduct and business justification (1). In theory, if consumers are happy, nothing happens. As you state with Google, you're pretty happy with the services they provide. At some point, Google stops trying to compete with better products and simply uses its dominate position to takeover markets. For example, Google Flights. Is Google Flights a better product? Does it save me money or provide more options? I honestly have no clue but the fact that Google can just integrate with the top of search, pushing down the market tested existing companies is bad for consumers. Google can just singularly introduce worse products and instantly gain significant market share by putting them at the top of search. Similarly, they have an infinite adwords budget. As for punishing success, I wouldn't frame it that way. In general, if the companies split, it will make way more money for the existing equity holders. They get shares in all the new companies and they tend to do well. 1) https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...