If google uses this behavior to for example make everyone use and support only chrome and tie their ad-targeting of the chrome user (google account) and dissuade using other search engines, would that not make it hard for other search platforms to compete by offering lower prices to consumers? I also worry how everyone these days has vendor locking on Chrome, if I use firefox I get lower quality content and Google has made it hard for devs to support non-chrome browsers, this hurts me as a consumer, although I find it hard to come up with a cash amount in damages.

I think this gets at the crux of it. If consumers aren't harmed directly, how do you quantify the impact of anti-competitive behavior and argue that it's "bad" and not "just business"?

I don't have an answer. I don't like Google's behavior here, and I don't like seeing vertical integration that cuts out potential disrupters since it stagnates innovation. But like has been seen for decades, vertical integration like this can often lower prices for consumers, and regulators have a tough time squaring that circle with what they can call tort.

Well, there is a such a thing as a non-monetary cost. I'm not sure if you are just describing the viewpoint of those who ignore such things, or whether you haven't thought of that.

I'm just parroting what I hear often about the FTC.