The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) again called on Google to sell its Chrome browser in a heightened effort to stem the tech giant’s monopoly over online search. The action, first proposed in November 2024, was part of a more expansive strategy to encourage competition and level the playing field in the digital marketplace.
DOJ’s renewed push for Chrome divestiture
In a recent filing (via The New York Times), the DOJ highlighted how Google’s ownership of Chrome gives the company unprecedented domination over a major access point to online search. The department says forcing Google to divest Chrome would “permanently prevent Google from controlling this essential search access point,” thus giving competing search engines a level playing field to access users.
Challenging default search engine agreements
In addition to divestiture, the DOJ is trying to ban Google from making deals that establish its search engine as the default on devices and browsers. These deals, usually involving large payments to firms such as Apple and Mozilla, have been accused of perpetuating Google’s market power and restricting consumer choice. Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had earlier held that such practices helped Google achieve its illegal monopoly in search on the internet.
Shift in DOJ’s stance on AI investments
Most importantly, the DOJ has withdrawn a previous proposal that would have forced Google to sell its stakes in artificial intelligence (AI) startups. Eventually, the move comes after comments from AI company Anthropic, which showed dependence on Google’s funding for its survival. Anyway, the DOJ’s new strategy demonstrates a more refined appreciation of the tech ecosystem, striking a balance between antitrust concerns and ensuring that innovation in emerging technologies is nurtured throughout.
Bipartisan support for antitrust measures
The DOJ’s move against Google has received bipartisan support, indicating a consensus stand on curbing monopolistic tendencies in the technology sector. The present administration follows through on what its predecessor began, highlighting the broad consensus on the need for such intervention. The DOJ’s complaint identifies Google’s behavior as building an “economic goliath” that manipulates market forces to preserve its stranglehold.
Google’s response and proposed remedies
Google responded by condemning the DOJ’s demands as excessive, describing them as part of an “interventionist agenda.” Google suggests alternative remedies such as enabling it to keep paying partners such as Apple and Mozilla to make Google Search the default choice while allowing these partners to enter into agreements with competing search engines. For example, according to Google’s proposal, Apple may provide alternate default search engines for its products, and browser makers might switch default search engines from time to time.
Upcoming judicial proceedings
Judge Mehta will hear arguments from both Google and the DOJ in April before making a final decision on remedies. The resolution of this case has the potential to drastically change the way Google operates, potentially changing the way millions of users access and interact with the internet.