More innovation in what? And as compared to what?

The innovations you mention are all addressing issues that only huge tech giants like Google have anyway. And they are all funded by the ad-supported business model, which IMO is a negative that outweighs those positive contributions.

Plus, the ad supported business model means users only get the benefit of any innovations Google makes when it increases Google's ad income. That incentive is not well aligned with the needs of users. How many times has Google discontinued a popular application because it wasn't making them enough money? A company in Google's position is exactly the company that could figure out how to get a billion users to pay them directly for services those users want, instead of using their eyeballs as commodities, but Google has put zero effort towards that highly desirable innovation.

We also don't see all the innovations that are not happening because the people that would have made them are being paid by Google and other tech giants to look for new ways to capture more eyeballs instead.

> I'm pretty sure this lawsuit is just a political attack. It seems reasonable that other monopolies in healthcare/defense/etc. are much much worse, yet they aren't "liberal"/"blue" companies, so there are no lawsuits.

If this hypothesis were correct, we would have expected to see lawsuits against those other monopolies during, say, the Obama administration. But we didn't.

The lawsuit is specifically stated in the article to be targeted at the ad-supported business model, so the obvious inference is that all the issues with that business model that have come up over the years have finally built up enough political pressure that the government feels it has to do something about it.