The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed remedies provide insight into the government’s goals in its antitrust case against Google. Although the lawsuit was filed in 2020, the initial phase of the trial centered on establishing Google’s liability for alleged antitrust violations. This summer, Judge Amit Mehta determined that Google holds an illegal monopoly in general search services and search text advertising. Now, the DOJ has revealed its strategy to restore competition, with suggestions ranging from minor adjustments to Google’s business practices to significant structural reforms.
According to David Halliday, a teaching associate professor of strategic management and public policy at George Washington University, the DOJ's suggested remedies could severely hinder Google’s ability to compete in its core areas of search and advertising. While not as monumental as breaking up Standard Oil, implementing these remedies would surpass the impact of dismantling AT&T in significance.
Should Judge Mehta adopt only a portion of the proposed measures after the two-week trial in April, Google might avoid the most drastic consequences. However, even partial acceptance could substantially diminish Google’s financial dominance, potentially costing the company billions. Interestingly, experts suggest that measures like selling Chrome, while attention-grabbing, may not pose the most significant threat to Google’s power.
Selling Chrome
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed that Google sell its Chrome browser, which dominates the U.S. market with around 60% share and is pre-installed on Android devices. As the largest browser, Chrome acts as a critical gateway to search engines, offering Google significant leverage to direct users to its own services while limiting exposure to competitors.
The intent behind this proposal is to prevent Google from maintaining control over such an essential platform, which could be used to entrench its dominance in search. However, selling Chrome raises complex questions about how it might reshape the web ecosystem.
Potential buyers include companies like Rumble, an anti-“cancel culture” video platform that has already expressed interest. However, Mandeep Singh, a senior tech analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, suggests that major tech companies like Amazon and Meta would likely be excluded due to antitrust concerns. Apple could be a possible candidate if regulators aim to encourage the development of a competing search engine—a move currently disincentivized by Apple’s lucrative revenue-sharing deal with Google. Yet, Apple owning Chrome would introduce its own consolidation risks, given it already controls a major browser.
The court might also impose restrictions on how Chrome’s new owner uses the platform, depending on the buyer. These conditions would aim to ensure the sale promotes competition rather than creating new monopolistic challenges.
Selling Precious data
The demand that Google sell Chrome might be the DOJ’s most eye-catching proposal, but another section could be an even bigger deal. The government wants Google to syndicate the very data its search engine is built upon — disrupting a self-reinforcing cycle that helps Google stay on top.
The DOJ says that as Google gobbled up access points to search engines, its huge volume of search queries gave it another advantage. It’s got more information than any competitor about which search results people find useful, and the government argues that makes it impossible for anyone to catch up. The result is that Google faces little competitive pressure to keep making its service better — which, even if it’s got the best search engine in the business, may end up making users’ experience worse. (If you don’t like AI summaries injected on top of your search results, for instance, do you want the engine using them to be the only game in town?)
The government’s proposal would (in theory) change that. For 10 years, the DOJ wants Google to syndicate its search results, ranking signals, and query data to competitors at a marginal cost. That kind of information could let competing search engines like Microsoft’s Bing or DuckDuckGo very quickly improve their products. If that happens, search engines’ competitive edge would likely center more around the additional product features they offer — anything from privacy to user interface details.
More transparency for advertisers
Judge Mehta determined that Google unlawfully held a monopoly in the search text advertising market, overcharging advertisers while reducing the quality of ads. To address this, the government has proposed measures to increase transparency and give advertisers greater control.
The proposal includes requiring Google to provide advertisers with clearer insights into their ad performance and pricing. It also suggests offering more options for targeting ads and allowing advertisers to export their search text ad data. This would make it easier for businesses to switch to competing advertising platforms, fostering a more competitive environment. These measures aim to curb Google's dominance and create fairer conditions in the digital advertising market.
Android's being sold too?
The government didn't make a demand to sell Android. However, it is being kept as a option in case Google fails to comply with other requests.
What'll happen to Google?
Even if everything else that the government requests happens, Google won't lose it's position as a big tech company because Google Search, YouTube, Gmail, and Android will still be theirs.