The attorneys general of more than 30 US states have filed a new antitrust complaint against Google, marking the third lawsuit against the online search and advertising giant this autumn. The complaint focuses on Google’s search business and alleges that it has an illegal monopoly that hurts consumers and advertisers. The suit was announced on Thursday by the Colorado attorney general, Phil Weiser, and was joined by the attorneys general of 34 other states as well as the District of Columbia and the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico. “Consumers are denied the benefits of competition, including the possibility of higher quality services and better privacy protections. Advertisers are harmed through lower quality and higher prices that are, in turn, passed along to consumers,” Weiser said in a press release. “Google has used its dominance to illegally squash competitors, monitor nearly every aspect of our digital lives, and profit to the tune of billions,” echoed the New York attorney general, Letitia James, who co-led the lawsuit, in a separate statement. “Through its illegal conduct, the company has ensured that hundreds of millions of people turn to Google first when looking for an answer, but it doesn’t take a web search to understand that unchecked corporate power shouldn’t have disproportionate control over our data and information,” she added. Thursday’s case is the third major antitrust action against Google in recent months. In October, the justice department, joined by 11 states, sued the $1tn company and accused it of acting unlawfully to maintain its position in search and advertising. On Wednesday, a group of Republican attorneys general led by Texas filed a separate lawsuit focused on Google’s dominance of digital advertising. The states that filed their suit on Thursday are asking for their case be consolidated with the one filed by the justice department, according to Weiser. The Colorado attorney general said the new suit goes beyond what has already been filed by the DOJ and focuses on three core ways Google unlawfully maintained its monopoly power in online search. Like the justice department, the attorneys allege that Google maintained “de facto exclusivity” in most distribution channels by engaging in “artificially restrictive contracts”. They accuse Google of striking deals with internet providers and computer companies like Apple to make its search engine the default on as many web browsers as possible. Google acquired Android in 2005 to cement its position in the mobile industry, as users and online search migrated from desktop computers to mobile phones. To this day, Google is the default and sometimes the only search option available for Android devices, the attorneys allege. The case also accuses Google of disadvantaging competitors by misrepresenting he performance of its search engine marketing tool SA360. And it accuses Google of engaging in “discriminatory conduct” by limiting the ability ofsearch providers such as Yelp and TripAdvisorto reach consumers and “other restrictions” that drive queries to Google at the expense of other pages. Some of Google’s rival companies, including the review site Yelp, praisedThursday’s action, saying Google had long used its dominance online to keep users in a “walled garden” of Google products. “We hope today’s action will begin to restore an internet that thrives on meritocracy and rewards innovation,” Yelp said in a statement. In the case filed on Thursday, the states are requesting action be taken to prevent Google from continuing these anticompetitive practices, including potentially breaking up the company. Google in a statement refuted that it has a monopoly in the search space, saying that courts in other countries have dismissed such charges in previous cases. The company plans to fight the case in court, said Adam Cohen, the director of Economic Policy at Google. “We know that scrutiny of big companies is important and we’re prepared to answer questions and work through the issues,” he said in a statement. “But this lawsuit seeks to redesign Search in ways that would deprive Americans of helpful information and hurt businesses’ ability to connect directly with customers.”