The Department of Justice is also seeking bold moves against Google by demanding the company give up its monopoly in the online search market and divest its Chrome browser. Last year, the DOJ filed a much bigger suit against Google on antitrust grounds, claiming the tech giant has even achieved an illegal monopoly in search and search text ads.
Last week, the DOJ made a small dent into Google’s stranglehold over search, filing a set of remedies to break up Google in a recent filing with the DC District Court. The sale of Chrome, the browser seen as the entry point to web search, is one of the main conditions: at the moment, Google holds over half the U.S. market for such search (about 50%). Another possibility is the spin-out of Android, a sign that the DOJ might not yet be done looking for other ways to boost competition if current remedies fail.
Will Google lose Chrome and its grip on the search market?
In addition, Google’s business practice is constrained by the DOJ’s proposals. Apple would be prohibited from having Google pay its money to use Google’s search engine, effectively making it the default. According to reports, tens of billions of dollars have quietly flowed into Apple’s coffers this lucrative arrangement. In addition to preventing self-preferencing behaviors on Google platforms, the DOJ seeks to force Google to permit rivals to place content onto the G platform at marginal cost while providing Google’s U.S.-sourced query database for the next 10 years.
The DOJ also demands that Google not penalize websites that choose not to be included in its AI overviews. Now, Judge Amit Mehta, overseeing this case, will decide how to best restore competition to this search market. The approach and proposals can evolve further, depending on how a remedies trial unfolding in April turns out and within the confines of a political environment that isn’t sorted out yet.
However, even as proposed, there is skepticism about whether such rules will change user behavior or spur competition with Google. Most former Google executives are skeptical that imposing such remedies would sufficiently dismantle Google’s monopoly power. Although they acknowledge that competing firms may harness innovation as a more directorial route to improving market competition, they contend that government interventions will not change user practices or relocate ownership positions in the search engine market.
For instance, those who favor divesting Chrome to empower other browsers and search engines think it would have more merit. However, critics point out it is harder because of users’ ingrained habits. One former Chrome business leader remarked, “You can’t ram an inferior product down people’s throats; users stay loyal to what they know unless the better options are offered.”
The competition wants a minor shift in Google’s power to allow other nimbler upstarts to eat into their slice. However, chrome is still sorely needed in some industry voices for a neutral steward, and handing it over to a nonprofit could open up opportunities to develop diverse search alternatives. “Moderating that relationship to the corporate overlords is always going to be a healthy thing,” said Guillermo Rauch, CEO of Vercel.
Image credit: Furkan Demirkaya/Flux AI
