Fabled startup investor and accelerator Y Combinator has some choice words for Google in an amicus brief it just submitted in the U.S.’s monopoly case against the search giant.
In the brief, YC charged that Google is a “monopolist” that has “stunted” the U.S. startup ecosystem by making VC firms like itself hesitate to fund web search and AI startups in what it calls a “kill zone” around Google.
“Google has chilled independent firms like YC from funding and accelerating innovative startups that could otherwise have challenged Google’s dominance,” YC wrote in the filing. “The result is a landscape that has been artificially stunted and stagnant.”
YC’s brief says it’s currently seeking to fund startups developing question-based and agentic AI tools that could transform how people interact with information on the internet. But YC says there’s a “clear risk” that Google will use its monopoly power to slow down the future of those markets.
“Google has effectively frozen the web search and text advertising markets for over a decade,” YC wrote.
The brief, filed May 9, was spotted on X by VC Sheel Mohnot, the general partner of Better Tomorrow Ventures and a prolific social media poster.
But YC isn’t calling for an immediate breakup of Google, as its CEO Garry Tan made clear in a reply to Mohnot.
Rather, YC is arguing Google should curb practices it considers anti-competitive, like paying Apple billions of dollars to make Google the iPhone’s default search engine. It also wants Google to do things it argues would help startups, like opening up Google’s search index so others can train LLMs on it.
For perspective, Google’s search algorithms have been its highly prized secret since its inception. For YC to ask the government to force Google to open it up to competitive LLMs is almost like demanding the government make Microsoft Windows open source, or forcing Amazon to freely deliver packages for competitors.
If Google doesn’t implement such changes within a five year timeframe, then YC advocates for the government to force Google to divest or spin out parts of itself. YC CEO Tan characterized this idea in an X post as a “spinoff hammer” threat. He also posted that “we love Google” but wants “little tech” to succeed, too, in a separate X thread.
YC released an amicus brief re: US v Google yesterday.
We love Google and what it represents as a paragon of US-led tech and innovation. We also want to make sure the excesses of big tech make way for tomorrow’s little tech.
— Garry Tan (@garrytan) May 10, 2025
To recap, last year Google lost a massive antitrust case over its dominance of the search market. While Google appeals the decision, the U.S. government is mulling potential punishments (‘remedies’) that Google might be required to implement, such as spinning off Chrome. Those remedies are expected to be delivered by August 2025.
YC’s stance may come as a surprise to those who have followed its latest partnerships with Google: most notably, Google Cloud gave YC startups access to a dedicated cluster of Nvidia GPUs last year. Google co-founder Larry Page also made a rare in-person appearance to speak at a YC event in December.
Google has also acquired at least two YC-backed startups: Flutter in 2014, and Fridge in 2011. It also invested in YC startup Infisical through its Gradient fund in 2023.
However, YC is also closely tied to OpenAI, which is now directly competing against Google on search. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman used to run YC, while OpenAI was the first group affiliated with YC Research.
That’s something Mohnot pointed to on X, writing that the biggest beneficiary of YC’s proposed remedies, by far, would be OpenAI, rather than YC’s famously early stage startups, while commenting that the amicus brief “paints Google as more powerful than it is.”
TechCrunch asked YC how it would respond to this critique, and whether it has any specific examples of areas that it probably would have funded had it not been for Google. So far, YC hasn’t responded to our comment request.
Google didn’t respond to a request for comment about YC’s amicus brief, either. However, it argued in a blog post last year that the DOJ’s proposals are “radical and sweeping” and would hurt consumers, business, and developers.
