Google was found to have a monopoly in the search industry in August, prompting the Justice Department to demand that the corporation sell over its Chrome browser.
Google’s 2008 debut of Chrome gives the search engine giant data that it uses to target advertisements. In a lawsuit on Wednesday, the DOJ said that requiring the business to discontinue Chrome would level the playing field for rival search engines.
The 23-page document states, “To remedy these harms, the [Initial Proposed Final Judgment] requires Google to divest Chrome, which will give rival search engines access to the browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet and permanently stop Google’s control of this critical search access point.”
The DOJ further declared that Google should not be allowed to sign exclusionary contracts with companies such as Apple and Samsung. Additionally, the DOJ declared that Google could not provide precedence to its search service in any of its other products.
Google should not be able to eliminate “developing competitive risks through acquisitions, minority investments, or collaborations,” according to the DOJ.” The “proposed remedies run for a period of 10 years,” according to the DOJ. According to the application, the search provider should be obliged to submit a monthly report detailing any modifications to its auction for search text advertisements to a technical committee.
The lawsuit states that the suggested remedies are intended to put a stop to Google’s illegal activities and create space for competitors and newcomers to enter the market.
In the third quarter of parent company Alphabet, search advertising generated $49.4 billion in revenue, or three-quarters of all ad sales at that time.
Since its 2001 settlement in its antitrust case against Microsoft, the DOJ has made its most aggressive attempt to dismantle a tech corporation with this request.
“But Plaintiffs recognize that such divestiture may draw significant objections from Google or other market participants,” the DOJ said, adding that compelling Google to sell off its Android mobile operating system would also help restore competition.
To “blunt Google’s ability to use its control of the Android ecosystem to favor its general search services,” the DOJ proposed that the other remedies should be sufficient. If, however, they “ultimately fail to achieve the high standards for meaningful relief in these critical markets, the Court could require return to” the Android divestiture suggestion.
A federal court said in August that Google had a monopoly in the search industry. After the government filed its historic case in 2020, claiming that Google dominated the general search industry by erecting high hurdles to entry and establishing a feedback loop that maintained its dominance, the verdict was made. The Sherman Act’s Section 2, which prohibits monopolies, was determined to have been broken by Google.
The DOJ said last month that it was thinking at dismantling Google’s companies, perhaps including its Play, Android, and Chrome divisions.
It also recommended that default agreements and “other revenue-sharing arrangements related to search and search-related products” be restricted or outright banned. This would include Google’s search agreements with Samsung for its mobile devices and Apple for the iPhone, which cost the business billions of dollars in royalties annually.
In order to delay any final remedy choices, Google has said that it will appeal the monopoly verdict.
Nonetheless, some legal experts believe that the court would urge Google to terminate some exclusive arrangements, such as its partnership with Apple, as the most likely result. The experts stated that although a split is improbable, the court may request that Google facilitate consumers’ access to rival search engines.
