DOJ’s Bold Move: Could Google Face a Market Shake-Up?

Department of Justice emblem on the American flag.

The Department of Justice pushes for Google to sell Chrome browser in a landmark antitrust case, aiming to dismantle the tech giant’s search engine monopoly.

At a Glance

DOJ urges Google to divest Chrome browser to address search market monopoly
Federal judge ruled in August that Google holds an illegal monopoly in search
Proposed remedies include ending exclusionary agreements with companies like Apple
Google plans to appeal the monopoly ruling and file its own proposals
Final ruling expected by August 2025, with potential delays anticipated

DOJ Pushes for Chrome Divestiture

In a bold move against tech giant Google, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is urging the company to divest its Chrome browser as part of a landmark antitrust case. This aggressive action aims to address Google’s monopoly in the search engine market, as determined by Judge Amit Mehta in a recent ruling. The case, initially filed by the DOJ four years ago, has culminated in a series of proposed remedies designed to break Google’s stronghold on the digital landscape.

Chrome, launched in 2008, has become a critical tool for Google in targeting ads and maintaining its search dominance. The DOJ believes that divesting Chrome would level the playing field for search competitors and prevent Google from controlling a key access point to internet searches. This proposal is part of a broader strategy to dismantle Google’s entrenched market position and foster healthy competition in the digital realm.

DOJ asks judge to force Google to sell Chrome as remedy in landmark antitrust case https://t.co/SB5sWnKzrw

— Business Insider (@BusinessInsider) November 21, 2024

Exclusionary Agreements and Monopolistic Practices

The DOJ’s case against Google, which began in 2020, revealed that the company paid a staggering $26 billion in 2021 to be the default search engine on various devices, with $18 billion going to Apple alone. These exclusionary agreements with companies like Apple and Samsung have been a key target of the antitrust action. The DOJ aims to prevent Google from eliminating competition through such acquisitions and partnerships, proposing remedies that would extend for 10 years.

“To remedy these harms, the [Initial Proposed Final Judgment] requires Google to divest Chrome, which will permanently stop Google’s control of this critical search access point and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet.” – The filing

This antitrust action is being hailed as the most aggressive move against a tech company since the Microsoft case in 2001. It underscores the government’s commitment to reining in the power of big tech and ensuring a competitive digital marketplace.

Google’s Response and Future Implications

Google, unsurprisingly, has pushed back against the DOJ’s proposals. The company plans to appeal the monopoly ruling, which could potentially delay final decisions in the case. Google’s regulatory affairs VP has criticized the DOJ’s proposal as a “radical agenda” that could harm consumers and technological leadership.

“The DOJ continues to push a radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case. The government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed.” – Lee-Anne Mulholland

The potential sale of Chrome would be a historic and multibillion-dollar development, with estimates suggesting Google could receive between $15 billion to $20 billion for the browser. However, legal experts believe a complete breakup is unlikely. Instead, they anticipate the court may require Google to end exclusive agreements and facilitate access to other search engines.

As the case progresses, Judge Mehta has scheduled a two-week hearing in April 2025 to discuss remedies, with a final ruling expected by August 2025. However, antitrust experts anticipate potential delays, especially with the transition to a new presidential administration on the horizon. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the tech industry and set a precedent for future antitrust actions against major technology companies.