After a court determined that Google had had an oppressive monopoly for the previous ten years, U.S. officials want a federal judge to disband the firm so it can stop stifling competition with its dominant search engine.
The U.S. Department of Justice released a 23-page document late Wednesday outlining the proposed split. It calls for broad penalties, such as the sale of Google’s market-leading Chrome browser and limitations to stop Android from favoring its own search engine.
In their petition, Justice Department attorneys contended that a sale of Chrome would permanently end Google’s dominance of this crucial search gateway and provide other search engines access to the browser, which serves as a gateway to the internet for many consumers.
Regulators said the judge should make it clear that Google might still be forced to sell its smartphone operating system if its oversight committee finds more evidence of wrongdoing, even if they refrained from requiring that the corporation sell Android as well.
Given the August order by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that labeled Google a monopolist, the recommended fines’ wide reach highlights how harshly regulators working under President Joe Biden’s administration feel the business should be penalized.
Decision-makers in the Justice Department who will take up the case once President-elect Donald Trump assumes office next year may not be as adamant.Mehta hopes to make his final ruling before Labor Day, and the court hearings on Google’s punishment are set to start in April in Washington, D.C.
Google would have to sell its 16-year-old Chrome browser within six months of the final decision if Mehta accepts the government’s suggestions. However, the corporation would undoubtedly contest any penalty, which may extend a legal battle that has been going on for over four years.
The Justice Department wants the judge to prohibit Google from entering into multibillion-dollar agreements to lock in its dominant search engine as the default option on Apple’s iPhone and other devices, in addition to requesting a Chrome spinoff and a corralling of the Android software. Additionally, it would prohibit Google from giving preference to its own services, such YouTube or Gemini, its recently introduced artificial intelligence platform.
In order to give its competitors a better chance of competing with the tech giant, regulators also want Google to grant licenses to its competitors for the search index data it gathers from users’ searches. Google would have to be more open about how it determines the costs that advertisers pay to appear near the top of certain targeted search results on the commercial side of its search engine.
The Justice Department’s radical interventionist goal, which would harm Americans and America’s global technology, was criticized by Kent Walker, the chief legal officer at Google. Walker said in a blog post that the proposal’s excessive scope will jeopardize individual privacy and jeopardize Google’s early dominance in artificial intelligence, which is arguably the most significant technological advancement of our time.
Regulators also cautioned Mehta to make sure websites can protect their content from Google’s AI training methods, given the company’s growing usage of AI in search results.
A company that is predicted to make over $300 billion this year could be completely upended if the restrictions are implemented.
The Justice Department said in its recommendations that Google’s actions have created an unfair playing field and that the company’s quality reflects the illegally obtained advantage. The solution must eliminate this disparity and deny Google these benefits.
Attempts to dismantle Google may still be slowed down by the Justice Department, particularly if Trump replaces Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, who Biden nominated to lead the department’s antitrust division.
Kanter oversaw the high-profile trial that resulted in Mehta’s decision against Google, despite the fact that the complaint against the company was initially filed in the last months of Trump’s first term in office. Together with Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, Kanter adopted a tough-on-Big Tech approach that deterred numerous commercial transactions over the previous four years and led to additional attempts at crackdowns on industry titans like Apple.
Trump recently voiced worries that a split may ruin Google, but he didn’t go into detail about other sanctions he might be considering. Trump stated last month that you can make it more equitable without tearing it up. Trump’s nominee for the future U.S. Attorney General, Matt Gaetz, a former Republican congressman, has called for the dissolution of Big Tech companies.
Gaetz must have a difficult confirmation hearing.
Kanter and his team had one last opportunity to outline the steps they believe are necessary to restore competition in search with this most recent filing. It occurs six weeks after Justice originally suggested a breakup in an initial draft of possible sanctions.
However, the question of whether regulators aim to impose controls that go beyond the topics discussed in the trial last year and, consequently, Mehta’s decision is already being raised by Kanter’s proposal.
One of the primary practices that bothered Mehta in his decision was the prohibition of the default search agreements, which Google currently spends over $26 billion a year to maintain.
It’s unclear if the judge will agree with the Justice Department’s argument that Chrome should be separated from Google and that Android should be totally isolated from the company’s own search engine.
Regarding the Chrome split, Syracuse University law professor Shubha Ghosh stated, “It is probably going a little beyond.” The injury and the transgression should be matched by the solutions. This certainly appear to be a bit over the top.
DuckDuckGo, a Google rival, said in its executives’ testimony at last year’s trial that the Justice Department is only taking necessary action to restrain a blatant monopolist.
According to a statement from Kamyl Bazbaz, senior vice president of public affairs at DuckDuckGo, “ending Google’s overlapping and widespread illegal conduct over more than a decade requires more than contract restrictions: it requires a range of remedies to create enduring competition.”
The attempt to dismantle Google is reminiscent of a similar penalty that was first applied to Microsoft 25 years ago during a significant antitrust lawsuit in which a federal judge found that the software developer had unlawfully used his Windows operating system for PCs to suppress competition.
But an order that would have dismantled Microsoft was overruled by an appeals court, setting a precedent that many analysts predict will make Mehta hesitant to follow in the Google case.
— The Associated Press’s Michael Liedtke
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
