The U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states unveiled their proposed remedies yesterday to dismantle Google’s illegal monopoly in search and search promoting. These include breaking off Chrome and banning default search payments.
The remedies break down into five categories meant to enable and increase competition:
- Distribution remedies. Ending payments that “freeze the ecosystem in place,” including Google’s multi-billion-dollar payments to Apple and Android device makers.
- Chrome divestiture. Separate Chrome from Google – organizationally and financially. The browser accounts for 35% of all Google search queries and drives “billions in Search revenue” (the actual number is redacted). The DOJ also identified that Google “underinvests” in Chrome.
- Data remedies. Require Google to share user-side data, search index coverage, and ad performance data – essential tools that help competitors train models, improve search results, and higher compete.
- Advertising remedies. Increase transparency and control for advertisers while helping rival ad platforms compete more effectively. Specifically, Google would have to supply more information to advertisers in search query reports, and let advertisers opt out of broad and automatic keyword matching.
- Anti-circumvention provisions. Establish a technical committee to observe Google’s compliance. This section features a “contingent Android divestiture.” If competition hasn’t improved inside five years, Google might be forced to spin off Android.
Why we care. If even a couple of of those remedies move forward, it could profoundly reshape how people access Google, how advertisers spend and the way competitors evolve in the search and generative AI markets.
Dig deeper: Why Google lost: The DoJ’s case in 11 slides
What Google is saying. In a blog post, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice chairman for Regulatory Affairs, said:
- The Justice Department’s proposals are too extreme and rooted in past grievances, somewhat than current technological realities. Google views the DOJ’s plan as heavy-handed and a part of an “interventionist agenda”.
- Forcing a breakup could harm U.S. consumers, the economy, and technological leadership, particularly in the global race with China in artificial intelligence. Google argues that the U.S. needs the company intact to compete with rivals like China’s DeepSeek.
- Divesting Chrome could have negative consequences for privacy and security. Google suggests that Chrome could turn into less secure, and the Chromium project might falter. This could also result in a decrease in browser alternative.
- Limits on how Google can integrate its AI into its products could hamper its AI efforts and decelerate American innovation at a critical time. Google suggests the case is simply too focused on the past search market and never the rapid changes in AI.
The opening slides. United States & Co-Plaintiff States v. Google LLC (redacted public version) (PDF).
The post Google search antitrust case: What the government wants appeared first on MarTech.
Read the full article here
