.png){kind=logo}
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is urging a federal judge to take unprecedented action against Google to curb its decade-long dominance in the search engine market. Central to the DOJ's sweeping proposal is a call to break up Google by forcing the sale of its Chrome web browser, a crucial access point for internet users.
In a 23-page filing, the DOJ argued that selling Chrome would neutralize Google’s monopoly, granting rival search engines fair access to compete. Regulators also seek to impose restrictions on Google’s Android operating system to prevent favoritism toward its search engine. While a full divestiture of Android wasn’t requested, the DOJ left the door open for future action if Google’s practices persist.
The recommendations follow an August ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that labeled Google as a monopolist. Proposed penalties extend to banning Google from paying billions to secure its search engine as the default on Apple and other devices, curbing favoritism for its platforms like YouTube, and making its advertising pricing system more transparent.
If approved, Google could be required to sell Chrome within six months of the final ruling, scheduled before Labor Day next year. However, the company is expected to appeal, potentially prolonging the legal battle.
The DOJ’s aggressive stance, driven by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, underscores the Biden administration’s commitment to holding Big Tech accountable. Yet, political transitions could alter the case's trajectory, as President-elect Donald Trump has signaled concerns over breaking up Google entirely.
Kent Walker, Google’s chief legal officer, dismissed the proposals as “radical” and warned that such measures could undermine privacy and stifle innovation in artificial intelligence (AI), an area where Google leads. Meanwhile, DuckDuckGo and other rivals have backed the DOJ’s recommendations, calling them necessary to undo years of anti-competitive behavior.
This case has shades of the Microsoft antitrust trial 25 years ago. Although an order to dissolve Microsoft was reversed on procedural grounds, regulators want to make certain that such an occurrence is not repeated in the future.
Litigation can alter a large and significant segment of the world’s business in a single company: doing so for Google could open the door to competition and set the terms for an entire industry.
The announcement of the break up of Google is a historic moment in the war against anti-competitive practices in tech giants. Since the DOJ’s recommendations if implemented will go very far in proactively maintaining a level playing field in the digital economy.
However, the following hurdles linking legal appeals to political changes augur the difficulties of targeting tech giants. Finally, it boils down to whether or not this case is about Google or if it is a test of whether regulators are capable of maintaining a process of continuous innovation while preventing the creation of an unfair selling ground for large companies to dominate at the expense of the consumers.
