The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is ramping up efforts to break Google’s dominance in the search market, recommending that the tech giant divest its Chrome browser as part of broader antitrust remedies. This move follows an August ruling that found Google holds a monopoly in the search industry.

Chrome’s Role in Google’s Market Dominance

Launched in 2008, Google Chrome has played a pivotal role in Google’s advertising empire by collecting user data that powers its highly targeted ad services. In a court filing on Wednesday, the DOJ argued that separating Chrome from Google would level the playing field for competitors in the search engine market.

The DOJ also proposed banning Google from entering exclusive agreements with companies like Apple and Samsung, deals that currently make Google the default search engine on many devices. Additionally, the agency recommended prohibiting Google from giving its own search services preferential treatment across its ecosystem.

Other Remedies to Address Google’s Search Monopoly

The DOJ has outlined several other measures to curb Google’s dominance:

1. Restricting Anti-Competitive Acquisitions: Google would be barred from acquiring or partnering with potential competitors to eliminate emerging threats.
2. Technical Oversight: The company would need to submit monthly reports to a technical committee detailing changes to its search ads auction process.
3. Time-Bound Remedies: These measures would remain in effect for a period of 10 years.

Search advertising remains a cornerstone of Google’s revenue, generating $49.4 billion in Alphabet’s third-quarter results, accounting for 75% of its total ad sales.

Calls for Chrome and Android Divestiture

In its most aggressive antitrust push since the Microsoft case in 2001, the DOJ has also floated the idea of Google divesting its Android mobile operating system. While recognizing the potential for significant resistance from Google and market players, the DOJ suggested this as a backup measure should other remedies fail to restore competition.

Instead, the DOJ emphasized that restricting Google’s ability to use the Android ecosystem to favor its own search services should suffice in reducing its market influence. However, it left the door open for further action if these measures prove ineffective.

Background on Google’s Antitrust Case

The DOJ’s recommendations stem from a landmark 2020 case that accused Google of monopolizing the search market through practices like creating barriers to entry and leveraging feedback loops to maintain its dominance. The federal court ruled in August that Google had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolistic practices.

Breaking Exclusive Deals: A Likely Remedy

Last month, the DOJ indicated it was considering breaking up parts of Google’s operations, including its Chrome, Android, or Play Store businesses. It also suggested limiting or outright banning revenue-sharing agreements, such as those with Apple and Samsung, which cost Google billions annually to remain the default search engine on their devices.

While legal experts consider a full breakup of Google unlikely, they predict the court may compel the company to end certain exclusive agreements and make it easier for users to switch to alternative search engines.

Google’s Appeal and Potential Outcomes

Google has announced plans to appeal the monopoly ruling, a process that could delay the implementation of any remedies. Legal experts believe the most probable outcome would involve the company eliminating exclusive deals, rather than divesting major assets like Chrome or Android. However, the DOJ’s proposals underscore its determination to curb Google’s market power and foster greater competition.

Key Takeaways

• The DOJ is pushing for Google to divest Chrome as part of a broader effort to address its search market monopoly.
• Remedies include banning exclusive agreements, increasing oversight, and restricting acquisitions.
• Google’s appeal of the antitrust ruling may prolong any final decisions, but the DOJ’s aggressive stance signals a historic effort to reshape the tech industry landscape.

(Sources: cnbc.com)