After a U.S. judge’s ruling that the company Alphabet had illegally monopolized the online search market, the article explores possible outcomes and solutions to this decision. Alphabet is one of the worlds largest companies, worth about 2 trillion dollars, and owns mega companies like Google, Chrome, the Android operating system, and more. The U.S. DOJ(Department of Justice) is debating outcomes such as divesting certain companies owned by Alphabet, breaking up Google, and ‘forced sales’ of specific programs. With no decisions made currently, there is a high scaled debate about what the best course of action could be, as a wrong decision for a company this size could be detrimental to international economies. The verdict comes after exclusive and illegal contracts came to light, as Alphabet paid companies like Apple roughly 26 billion dollars in 2021 to secure their spot as default browser. This action cemented Google into the hands of millions, leaving no room for other companies in their market. Despite such a severe case, many experts interviewed in the article debate whether a break up is even possible, as this case shares many similarities with the Microsoft Antitrust case. The Microsoft Antitrust case was an illegal monopoly similar to Alphabet, but when punished they avoided being broken up and still remain a very substantial power in the tech world. Therefore, Alphabet has a high chance at avoiding a break up, due to historical events and the sheer power a company worth $2 Tn has it is likely a favorable outcome will be elected for.Google has set up substantial barriers to entry in the search market, chiefly through exclusive agreements and deals signed with other companies. The most significant action by Google is the 26 billion dollar deal with Apple. Apple is a highly strategic distribution point for the entire online search market, and by making Google its exclusive partner it prevents any competitors from gaining access to patrons in their market. A barrier like this ruined incentive for other tech companies, as Apple’s own monopolistic attitude doubled up Google's influence and power in the industry. With no possible room in this market, many other companies gave up or went bankrupt, leaving less and less options available for competition. Alphabet was able to maintain these barriers through exponential financial resources almost no company on earth can rival. This allowed them to offer superior services to consumers, making no reason for people to support other companies. As these barriers remained unbreakable, Google gathered even more superior assets like datasets, lucrative deals, and price control. The combination of all of Google's gained assets left competitors to face insurmountable challenges, hindering them from being even considered as meaningful competition.Under the monopolistic conditions in the search market, Google's reign brings efficiency through integrated services that provide a connected and simple experience for users. The simplicity offered by all these services gives users a huge benefit as they don't have to search between platforms and are provided their needs all together. Lower transaction and opportunity cost for consumers allows for lack of incentive to use other platforms, allowing Google to have an extremely high consumer retention rate. This concentration also results in inefficient prices, primarily for advertisers. As Google controls the advertising market, they also control the prices in said market resulting in higher prices as there is no competition. However, if Google were to be broken up, these services would become far more inefficient due to their disconnection and less optimized datasets. Google’s producer surplus would dive, due to its divestment of assets and competitive edges, but consumer surplus could potentially increase as competition creates new developments and lowers costs. In the short run, users might face inefficient and fragmented services, but in the long run competition will eventually balance out allowing pareto efficiency to take over the market.From an economist's perspective, a break up of Google would cause an assortment of new firms to enter the market, as many of Google's previous barriers would be unmaintainable due to the divestment of certain assets and disorganization. With the same mindset, the perfect competition created by these firms is more efficient than a monopoly because an equilibrium price and quantity can be reached, removing deadweight losses and maximizing total surplus(Pareto efficiency). Therefore, the decision should be to break up Google and let the market find its equilibrium and make room for new competition; However this should not be the case. These ideas are purely theoretical, and would not play out exactly the same in the real world. The best outcome would involve maintaining the status-quo, because although a typical monopoly is inefficient, Google has had much success mitigating losses and provide special benefit for consumers only achieved through its past.Tweaking the certain aspects that make Google such a monopoly, could be all that's needed to make a fully efficient market. Google’s exclusive contracts and private datasets used for advertising are the two primary edges, and a solution for both would be the removal of a default browser from public technology, and for Adwords datasets to be public for the rest of the market to use. This solution would maintain Google’s successes, while allowing new competitors to enter the market and help find an equilibrium to maximize effieciency.