On Wednesday, the Department of Justice is set to present a federal judge with a request concerning the possible breakup of Google. This follows a recent finding that the tech giant has illegally maintained a monopoly in the online search domain, largely by investing substantial sums into agreements with manufacturers that would designate it as their default search engine.
According to Bloomberg News, the Justice Department will submit a petition to Judge Amit Mehta, who presides over the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The petition will propose the possibility of forcing Google to divest its Chrome browser or Android mobile operating system, as well as addressing existing contracts for default web browsers and data-sharing agreements.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, who oversees regulatory affairs at Google, criticized the Justice Department’s initiatives, asserting that they are promoting a “radical agenda that goes far beyond legal issues in this case.” She warned that such government actions would “harm customers, developers and American technological leadership.”
This contentious situation could fundamentally alter the online search landscape and the burgeoning artificial intelligence sector. It has drawn comparisons to the unsuccessful antitrust actions against Microsoft Corp. in 2001. A breakup of Google would represent the most significant antitrust-driven disbanding of a large corporation since the breakup of AT&T in the 1980s.
Currently, Chrome holds the title of the most popular web browser globally, boasting around 3.45 billion users. In August, Judge Mehta ruled that Google had engaged in excessive measures to maintain its dominance in the search engine sector, noting that the large financial resources the company directed into securing default agreements stifled competition.
“Google’s distribution agreements foreclose a substantial portion of the general search services market and impair rivals’ opportunities to compete,” Judge Mehta stated.
This decision is the latest development in a legal struggle that began during the Trump administration. The Justice Department, along with 11 state attorneys general, initiated a lawsuit in 2020 aimed at curbing Google’s “unlawful maintenance of monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets and to remedy the competitive harms.”
This legal approach signals an increasing examination of Big Tech practices in Washington, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence in focus. In a 32-page document filed in October, the Justice Department contended, “Google’s anticompetitive conduct resulted in interlocking and pernicious harms that present unprecedented complexities in a highly evolving set of markets.”
“These markets are indispensable to the lives of all Americans, whether as individuals or as business owners, and the importance of effectively unfettering these markets and restoring competition cannot be overstated,” it added.
In response, Mulholland argued that separating Chrome or Android would “change their business models, raise the cost of devices, and undermine Android and Google Play in their robust competition with Apple’s iPhone and App Store.”
Rebecca Haw Allensworth, an antitrust law professor at Vanderbilt University, expressed uncertainty regarding the outcome of a potential breakup of Google. “We don’t know what the judge is going to impose yet,” Ms. Allensworth remarked. “I see some of these are relatively unlikely, but it makes sense to ask for more than you think you can get. Maybe you hope the judge is going to split the baby somewhere in the middle, and I happen to think the data-sharing part might be in the middle — maybe not the spinoff of Chrome.”
She pointed out that these lawsuits reflect a belief among government officials that a balance needs to be restored to a marketplace that is loosely monitored. “The idea here, I think, is just to recalibrate,” she suggested.
Aneesh Chopra, who served as chief technology officer during the Obama administration, noted that less dramatic solutions could address the concerns. “The provision that didn’t get as much attention, but might actually be the sleeper sort of opportunity is that Google would open up access to its search technology through licensing agreements with third parties,” Mr. Chopra explained during a CNBC segment on Tuesday. “This could be the most important part of the agreement.”
“If there is this opportunity for competitors, new entrants to access that historical technology that is obviously dominating the way we search the internet today, then it might mean more value-added services will come out to make that a more competitive market that regulators are asking for,” he added. However, he also cautioned that there are risks involved, including concerns that third-party companies might not adequately safeguard consumer privacy.
