Illegal monopoly case: US might force Google to sell part of its operations

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has ramped up its antitrust case against Google, leading to proposals that could drastically reshape the tech giant’s operations. After a federal judge ruled in August that Google holds a monopoly over online search, the DOJ is considering a range of remedies that aim to address Google’s dominant position in various sectors, including Chrome, Android, and Google Play. With possible outcomes that could see Google spinning off key assets, the company is pushing back against what it views as extreme measures that could harm innovation, consumers, and even competitors.

Google’s monopoly status stems from its search engine being the default option on platforms like Apple’s iPhone and major web browsers. The company pays billions to maintain this privileged position, creating what the DOJ describes as an unfair advantage that stifles competition. This long-running practice, the DOJ argues, has allowed Google to dominate the market while competitors, such as DuckDuckGo and Bing, struggle to gain traction.

In its recent filing, the DOJ laid out a series of “behavioral and structural” remedies to correct Google’s monopolistic behavior. These include requiring Google to share its search data, offering competitors access to the same indexes, feeds, and models used by Google’s search engine. But perhaps the most significant proposal is the potential breakup of Google’s Android, Chrome, and Play divisions, severing them from the search engine business to prevent anti-competitive practices.

DOJ’s plan to rein in Google

Among the many options the DOJ is exploring, here are some key remedies being considered:

• Breakup of Chrome, Android, and Google Play: The DOJ is weighing whether splitting these services from Google could level the playing field for rival search engines and emerging technologies. By separating them from Google Search, the government hopes to eliminate Google’s ability to use its other products to favor its search services.
• Data access and API sharing: The DOJ has proposed making Google provide competitors with access to its search indexes, data feeds, and algorithms through an API. This would enable smaller search engines to offer comparable results, potentially lowering barriers to entry in the search market.
• Opt-out provisions for AI: Another radical proposal involves allowing websites to opt out of being used to train Google’s artificial intelligence models, such as those behind AI-generated summaries on Google Search. This would prevent Google from exploiting web content created by third parties without consent.
• Advertising reforms: Google’s monopolistic hold on advertising is also under scrutiny. The DOJ is considering measures that would require Google to syndicate its ad platform independently of its search engine, ensuring a more competitive advertising market. This could involve offering rivals the same tools Google uses to monetize search ads, helping smaller platforms to compete for advertisers.

Google’s response

In a statement, Google vehemently opposed these proposals, labeling them as “radical and sweeping” and cautioning that they could harm consumers, businesses, and innovation. The company argues that splitting off its key products, like Chrome and Android, would not only disrupt the tech ecosystem but also increase the cost of devices and reduce security for users.

According to Google, Chrome and Android have been instrumental in bringing the internet to billions of users, offering secure, open-source platforms that enable competition with Apple’s tightly controlled ecosystem. If these products were spun off, Google contends, their business models would change, leading to higher costs for developers and consumers alike.

Moreover, Google warns that forcing the company to share its search data with competitors could pose significant privacy risks. In Google’s view, the sensitive nature of user search queries and the robust security infrastructure it has built could be compromised if these data were shared with companies that do not have the same security standards.

Google also fears that government interference in the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence could stifle American innovation. AI, Google claims, is a crucial frontier for technological advancement, and any heavy-handed government intervention could hinder the U.S.’s ability to lead in this critical space.

The judge overseeing the case is expected to make a final decision on the DOJ’s proposed remedies by August 2025. If the court rules in favor of the DOJ, the remedies could be enacted, though Google is almost certain to appeal, potentially delaying the final outcome for years.

Meanwhile, other lawsuits are piling up. Yelp, for instance, recently filed an antitrust lawsuit accusing Google of using its dominance in local search to unfairly disadvantage competitors. Yelp claims that Google has stifled innovation and hurt consumers by promoting its own “inferior” local search results over those of competitors.

The Mozilla Foundation, which relies heavily on Google’s revenue-sharing agreements, could also be affected by the outcome of this antitrust case. Mozilla, which receives 80% of its operating budget from Google, could lose out if the court orders Google to dismantle its revenue-sharing arrangements with browser developers.

No doubt that Google’s future is hanging in the balance as the DOJ’s antitrust case pushes forward. While the remedies proposed by the DOJ aim to restore competition in the search and advertising markets, they carry the potential for significant disruptions in the tech world. With concerns over privacy, innovation, and the broader tech ecosystem, Google is preparing for a long, drawn-out battle to defend its business model. The final verdict could reshape the landscape of digital services, with ramifications for consumers, developers, and businesses worldwide.

Featured image: Google