Alphabet’s Google must sell its Chrome browser, share data and search results with rivals, and take other measures—possibly including selling Android—to end its monopoly on online search, prosecutors argued in a Washington court on Wednesday. These measures are part of a landmark case that could reshape how users find information online.
If implemented, the measures could remain in place for up to a decade, enforced by a court-appointed committee to remedy what the presiding judge has described as an illegal monopoly in search and related advertising in the U.S., where Google processes 90% of all searches. “The unlawful behavior of Google has deprived rivals of critical distribution channels and distribution partners that could enable competitors to enter the market in new and innovative ways,” the DOJ and state antitrust enforcers stated in their court filing.
The proposed measures include ending exclusive agreements where Google pays billions of dollars each year to Apple and other device manufacturers to make its search engine the default on their tablets and smartphones. In response, Google called the proposals staggering.
“The DOJ’s approach would lead to unprecedented government overreach that could harm American consumers, developers, and small businesses, jeopardizing America’s global economic and technological leadership at a time when it’s needed most,” stated Kent Walker, Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer. As a result of these developments, Alphabet’s shares closed nearly 5% lower on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has scheduled a trial for the proposals in April. However, it’s possible that President-elect Donald Trump and the DOJ’s next antitrust head could intervene and alter the course of the case.
The proposed measures are comprehensive and include barring Google from re-entering the browser market for five years and requiring the company to sell its Android mobile operating system if other remedies fail to restore competition. The DOJ has also requested a ban on Google buying or investing in search rivals, query-based artificial intelligence products, or advertising technology. Additionally, publishers and websites would be allowed to opt out of having their data included in the training of Google’s AI products.
A five-person technical committee, appointed by the judge, would be responsible for enforcing compliance with these proposals. Google would be required to cover the costs of this committee, which would have the authority to demand documents, interview employees, and investigate software code, as outlined in the filing.
These measures aim to break what prosecutors describe as “a perpetual feedback loop” that further entrenches Google by providing additional users, data, and advertising revenue.
Chrome is the world’s most widely used web browser and is a fundamental part of Google’s business, helping the company target ads more effectively. Prosecutors argue that Google has leveraged Chrome and Android to favor its own search engine at the expense of competitors. Google contends that divesting Chrome and Android, which are based on open-source code and are free, would negatively impact companies that have built their products around these platforms.
The proposals would also prohibit Google from requiring devices running on Android to include its search or AI products. Google would have the option to sell these software assets instead of complying with the measures, though any potential buyers would need the approval of the DOJ and state antitrust enforcers.
Data sharing requirements are another component of the proposals. Google would be mandated to license search results to competitors at a nominal cost and share user data with rivals for free, provided that it does not involve sensitive information that could compromise user privacy.
The DOJ developed these proposals after discussions with companies that compete with Google, including the search engine DuckDuckGo, which views the case as a significant opportunity to lower barriers to competition. DuckDuckGo’s head of public affairs, Kamyl Bazbaz, expressed optimism, stating, “We think this is a really big deal.”
In contrast, Google has maintained that compromising user trust by sharing sensitive data with competitors is not an option and will resist any attempts to bypass European Union rules on data sharing.
About Author
