Following a significant antitrust ruling in August that determined Google holds an illegal monopoly in online search, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed remedies aimed at dismantling this monopoly. In a recent filing, the DOJ suggested that Federal Judge Amit Mehta could enforce a range of requirements, the most notable being the forced divestiture of Chrome, Google's leading web browser.
U.S. regulators are proposing aggressive measures to restore competition to the online search market after a federal judge ruled Google maintained an illegal monopoly for the last decade.
The sweeping set of recommendations filed late Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Justice could radically alter Google’s business, including possibly spinning off the Chrome web browser and syndicating its search data to competitors. Even if the courts adopt the blueprint, Google isn’t likely to make any significant changes until 2026 at the earliest, because of the legal system’s slow-moving wheels.
.webp)
Here’s what it all means:
What is the Justice Department’s goal?
Federal prosecutors are cracking down on Google in a case originally filed during near the end of then-President Donald Trump’s first term. Officials say the main goal of these proposals is to get Google to stop leveraging its dominant search engine to illegally squelch competition and stifle innovation.
“The playing field is not level because of Google’s conduct, and Google’s quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired,” the Justice Department asserted in its recommendations. “The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages.”
Not surprisingly, Google sees things much differently. The Justice Department’s “wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court’s decision,” Kent Walker, Google’s chief legal officer, asserted in a blog post. “It would break a range of Google products — even beyond search — that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives.”
It’s still possible that the Justice Department could ease off on its attempts to break up Google, especially if President-elect Donald Trump takes the widely expected step of replacing Jonathan Kanter, who was appointed by President Joe Biden to oversee the agency’s antitrust division.
Why focus on Chrome?
Regulators want Google to sell off its industry-leading Chrome web browser, though the filing did not specify who would ultimately buy the business or how that process would work.
Justice lawyers called Chrome a “gateway to the internet” that provides the search giant with data it then uses for targeted advertising. Regulators believe that asking Google to divest Chrome would create a more equal playing field for search competitors.
Chrome also is included in the set of apps bundled with Android on phones as part of a mobile device ecosystem that regulators say gives Google a big edge.
Chrome is the world’s most popular mobile web browser, with about 67% adoption globally, according to StatCounter. Apple’s Safari browser has the next highest adoption at 18%.
Although it could be years before we see any practical effects of this case on the market, it could mean users would see more search engine options when selecting a default one to use on their favored devices.
Does any of this affect Android?
While federal regulators aren’t going as far as to demand Google spin off Android, they are leaving the door open.
The government asked the judge to impose behavioral limitations that would essentially blunt Android from favoring Google’s own general search services.
Regulators asserted U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta should make it clear that Google could still be required to divest its smartphone operating system if the other proposed measures prove ineffective at restoring competition to the search market.
Android is the world’s most popular smartphone operating system, found on 71% of mobile phones, Statcounter says. It’s free to use, so many devices by Samsung and many other tech companies — aside from Apple — have it pre-installed.
What else?
The Justice Department outlined a range of behavioral measures to give rival search engines a better chance at competing with Google.
The core remedy is a ban on Google from cutting deals worth billions of dollars to lock in its search engine as the default option on Apple’s iPhone and other popular devices. This could potentially impact the bottom line at companies receiving such packages.
Other key recommendations:
1. Prohibiting Google from using search results to favor its own services, such as YouTube or its recently-launched artificial intelligence platform, Gemini.
2. Forcing Google to license the search index data to its rivals.
3. Requiring Google to be more transparent about how it sets the prices advertisers pay to be listed near the top of some targeted search results.
4. Giving publishers, websites and content creators the right to opt out of having their data indexed for Google’s search results or to train its artificial intelligence models.
What comes next?
Google has the chance to submit its own list of proposed fixes in December, and federal regulators will file a revised version of their proposals in early March. Court hearings on these proposed measures are scheduled to begin in April and Mehta is expected to issue a final decision before Labor Day.
The remedies trial will take place after the Trump administration takes over from Biden in January and assumes oversight of the Department of Justice, which could impact the punishments it ultimately pursues.
Although Trump has made comments suggesting a breakup of Google isn’t in the U.S. national interest, recent nominations put forward by his transition team have favored those who have been critical of Big Tech companies. And the case was originally filed during Trump’s first term, which suggests Google won’t be entirely off the hook.
Google is expected to appeal the case after the remedy hearings, which means the case could drag on for years in the courts.
U.S. regulators want a federal judge to break up Google to prevent the company from continuing to squash competition through its dominant search engine after a court found it had maintained an abusive monopoly over the past decade.
The proposed breakup floated in a 23-page document filed late Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Justice calls for sweeping punishments that would include a sale of Google’s industry-leading Chrome web browser and impose restrictions to prevent Android from favoring its own search engine.
A sale of Chrome “will permanently stop Google’s control of this critical search access point and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet,” Justice Department lawyers argued in their filing.
Although regulators stopped short of demanding Google sell Android too, they asserted the judge should make it clear the company could still be required to divest its smartphone operating system if its oversight committee continues to see evidence of misconduct.
The broad scope of the recommended penalties underscores how severely regulators operating under President Joe Biden’s administration believe Google should be punished following an August ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that branded the company as a monopolist.
The Justice Department decision-makers who will inherit the case after President-elect Donald Trump takes office next year might not be as strident. The Washington, D.C. court hearings on Google’s punishment are scheduled to begin in April and Mehta is aiming to issue his final decision before Labor Day.
If Mehta embraces the government’s recommendations, Google would be forced to sell its 16-year-old Chrome browser within six months of the final ruling. But the company certainly would appeal any punishment, potentially prolonging a legal tussle that has dragged on for more than four years.
Besides seeking a Chrome spinoff and a corralling of the Android software, the Justice Department wants the judge to ban Google from forging multibillion-dollar deals to lock in its dominant search engine as the default option on Apple’s iPhone and other devices. It would also ban Google from favoring its own services, such as YouTube or its recently-launched artificial intelligence platform, Gemini.
Regulators also want Google to license the search index data it collects from people’s queries to its rivals, giving them a better chance at competing with the tech giant. On the commercial side of its search engine, Google would be required to provide more transparency into how it sets the prices that advertisers pay to be listed near the top of some targeted search results.
Kent Walker, Google’s chief legal officer, lashed out at the Justice Department for pursuing “a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology.” In a blog post, Walker warned the “overly broad proposal” would threaten personal privacy while undermining Google’s early leadership in artificial intelligence, “perhaps the most important innovation of our time.”
Wary of Google’s increasing use of artificial intelligence in its search results, regulators also advised Mehta to ensure websites will be able to shield their content from Google’s AI training techniques.
The measures, if they are ordered, threaten to upend a business expected to generate more than $300 billion in revenue this year.
“The playing field is not level because of Google’s conduct, and Google’s quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired,” the Justice Department asserted in its recommendations. “The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages.”
It’s still possible that the Justice Department could ease off attempts to break up Google, especially if Trump takes the widely expected step of replacing Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, who was appointed by Biden to oversee the agency’s antitrust division.
Although the case targeting Google was originally filed during the final months of Trump’s first term in office, Kanter oversaw the high-profile trial that culminated in Mehta’s ruling against Google. Working in tandem with Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, Kanter took a get-tough stance against Big Tech that triggered other attempted crackdowns on industry powerhouses such as Apple and discouraged many business deals from getting done during the past four years.
Trump recently expressed concerns that a breakup might destroy Google but didn’t elaborate on alternative penalties he might have in mind. “What you can do without breaking it up is make sure it’s more fair,” Trump said last month. Matt Gaetz, the former Republican congressman that Trump nominated to be the next U.S. Attorney General, has previously called for the breakup of Big Tech companies.
Gaetz faces a tough confirmation hearing.
This latest filing gave Kanter and his team a final chance to spell out measures that they believe are needed to restore competition in search. It comes six weeks after Justice first floated the idea of a breakup in a preliminary outline of potential penalties.
But Kanter’s proposal is already raising questions about whether regulators seek to impose controls that extend beyond the issues covered in last year’s trial, and — by extension — Mehta’s ruling.
Banning the default search deals that Google now pays more than $26 billion annually to maintain was one of the main practices that troubled Mehta in his ruling.
It’s less clear whether the judge will embrace the Justice Department’s contention that Chrome needs to be spun out of Google, and the recommendation that Android should be completely walled off from the company’s own search engine.
“It is probably going a little beyond,” Syracuse University law professor Shubha Ghosh said of the Chrome breakup. “The remedies should match the harm, it should match the transgression. This does seem a little beyond that pale.”
Google rival DuckDuckGo, whose executives testified during last year’s trial, asserted the Justice Department is simply doing what needs to be done to rein in a brazen monopolist.
“Undoing Google’s overlapping and widespread illegal conduct over more than a decade requires more than contract restrictions: it requires a range of remedies to create enduring competition,” Kamyl Bazbaz, DuckDuckGo’s senior vice president of public affairs, said in a statement.
Trying to break up Google harks back to a similar punishment initially imposed on Microsoft a quarter century ago following another major antitrust trial that culminated in a federal judge deciding the software maker had illegally used his Windows operating system for PCs to stifle competition.
However, an appeals court overturned an order that would have broken up Microsoft, a precedent many experts believe will make Mehta reluctant to go down a similar road with the Google case.