At this point there's about a hundred (or more) years of research, experience, law etc. in competition policy.
Competition doesn't necessarily just win in the mid-term. Competitions works - if the conditions are right, markets are anonymous and dynamic, not two-sided, not plaqued by information symmetries and - importantly - vertical entanglements. Competitions also works out in the long term. Like, take a hundred years and squint.
However, in the meantime of all this, there are many cases where the market outcome moves strikingly far away from the optimum. What that means is that the market situation destroys value (consumer welfare, societal roi, whatever)
You can scan the OP for about three sections and see that Google is violating any reasonable and established take on how market regulation, leading to an inefficient market outcome.
This is not some special European temperament. This is just standard and - just to make this clear - 100% American economic theory as previously applied and pioneered mainly in the good US of A.
If this doesn't get applied in the US now, we may call this regulatory capture.
Personally, I feel it also really speaks to the situation that Google is lauded as representing the US tech scene. I disagree here. I think the US tech scene goes far beyond Google. Google ain't even a particular strength, probably more of a weakness by now.
By contrast, you could (and should) bring up about a million things the EU and the commision in particular does to stifle a EU tech scene.
Bog standard application of competition policy ain't it.