Having a monopoly and abusing it are two different things.
MS was in a position to abuse it because no one could switch to OSX or Linux without huge expense; hard to run win32 apps.
Google is waaaay different. Alternatives that work just as well exist, and they exist for the same "free as in beer" to users as numerous alternatives.
Are we to punish Google because people aren't switching from their from their products to alternatives?
Microsoft had a monopoly at a lower level in the stack. When all the software you rely on is win32, it's hard to move to Linux or OSX.
People can dump Chrome tomorrow for at least 4 fully-featured alternatives - Firefox, Safari, IE, Opera - which effectively support all the features of the web Chrome does.
The filter layer above isn't tuned to that message. It's tuned to a message from bean counters/upper management.