The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has ramped up its fight against Google, proposing significant remedies to address the tech giant’s illegal monopoly in search and search advertising. Among the most radical measures, the DOJ seeks to compel Google to divest its Chrome web browser and impose sweeping restrictions on its business practices. This legal confrontation marks one of the most significant antitrust cases since the breakup of AT&T in 1982.
Chrome and the Search Monopoly
At the heart of the DOJ’s proposed remedies is the demand for Google to spin off its Chrome browser, which prosecutors argue serves as a critical entry point for its dominance in search. Filed in the DC District Court, the proposal aims to restore competition by limiting Google’s ability to leverage Chrome to favor its search engine. The DOJ also left the door open to requiring Google to divest its Android mobile operating system, a move that could reshape the mobile ecosystem if other remedies fail.
Prosecutors argue that Google’s business model relies heavily on self-preferencing, where its products, such as Chrome and Android, are optimized to promote its own search engine while limiting competition. Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled in August that Google held an illegal monopoly, will decide on the remedies by next summer.
Google’s Response: A Cry of Overreach
Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and chief legal officer, has criticized the DOJ’s proposals as extreme and counterproductive. Walker contends that the measures amount to “unprecedented government overreach” and would harm consumers who benefit from Google’s integrated services.
“DOJ’s wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court’s decision,” Walker said. “It would break a range of Google products that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives.” Google plans to submit its own counterproposals and continue its legal defense.
Expanding the Remedies
Beyond divestitures, the DOJ has proposed a series of stringent rules aimed at curbing Google’s influence. These include:
- Prohibiting payments to device makers, like Apple, to secure Google Search as the default engine.
- Mandating that Google allow competitors access to its search index at a minimal cost.
- Enabling publishers to opt out of their content being used to train Google’s AI models without penalty in search rankings.
- Requiring Google to syndicate search results, ranking signals, and U.S.-originated query data for at least a decade.
These measures, prosecutors argue, are essential to dismantle Google’s entrenched dominance and open up the market to new competitors.
Shifting Political Landscape
The case unfolds amid political transitions that could influence its trajectory. Initially filed during the Trump administration, the antitrust case has been pursued aggressively under President Biden’s DOJ, led by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter. However, with a new administration incoming, the direction of antitrust enforcement may shift.
Trump’s administration previously expressed concerns about Big Tech’s influence over public discourse rather than its monopolistic practices. Some experts speculate that Trump could pursue a settlement rather than a full breakup, potentially citing national security concerns and the competitive race against China in technology.
The Stakes for Big Tech
The Google case is the first of several high-profile antitrust trials targeting major tech companies. With additional cases against Meta, Amazon, and Apple in the pipeline, the outcomes could redefine the regulatory landscape for the tech industry.
For now, Judge Mehta must weigh the DOJ’s sweeping proposals against Google’s counterarguments, with evidentiary hearings set for early next year. As the legal battle unfolds, the stakes remain high—not only for Google but for the broader fight to regulate Big Tech’s influence on markets and society.
This landmark case could signal a new era of antitrust enforcement, forcing Silicon Valley to reckon with its market power in unprecedented ways.
