Next year, a court could impose a range of remedies on Google, from forcing the company to syndicate its search results to requiring the sale of its Chrome browser. These potential changes were outlined last week in a request by the Justice Department, which is working to dismantle Google’s monopoly on search services.
While the Justice Department’s complaint was filed in 2020, the first phase of the trial focused solely on determining whether Google had violated antitrust laws. This summer, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google is indeed an illegal monopolist in the fields of general search services and search text advertising. Now, the government has put forward a set of proposals aimed at restoring competition, ranging from modest adjustments to major structural reforms.
David Halliday, an expert in strategic management and public policy at George Washington University, warns that the DOJ’s remedies could significantly harm Google’s ability to compete in its core business of search and search advertising. He believes that if Judge Mehta adopts these proposals, it could have a more profound impact on Google than the breakup of AT&T.
If Mehta only accepts some of these remedies after the trial in April, Google may emerge relatively unscathed, though it could still lose billions in revenue. Experts suggest that options such as the sale of Chrome may not be the most damaging to Google’s dominance.
The DOJ has argued that Google should be required to sell Chrome, which holds a dominant position in the browser market. Chrome is pre-installed on Android devices and has a 60% share of the U.S. browser market. The proposal aims to stop Google from controlling a key platform that funnels users to its own search engine while steering them away from competitors. However, selling Chrome raises several questions, particularly regarding how the browser’s sale would affect the broader web ecosystem.
There are potential buyers like Rumble, the video platform, which has expressed interest in acquiring Chrome. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh suggests that large tech firms such as Amazon or Meta might be blocked due to antitrust concerns. Apple could be an exception, potentially acquiring Chrome to develop its own search engine—a prospect Google has previously discouraged through lucrative deals. However, Apple already has a browser in Safari, so this move could further consolidate the tech market. If a company like OpenAI or Anthropic buys Chrome, it could integrate the browser with its AI products, such as chatbots, further complicating the competitive landscape.
The concern is whether selling Chrome would merely transfer Google’s gatekeeping power to another tech giant. Experts warn that if Chrome is sold to a company like OpenAI, it could create a new anti-competitive advantage, as the buyer would control a major distribution channel. Still, Singh argues that Google’s market dominance would remain difficult to replicate, especially due to its ecosystem of services like YouTube and Gmail, which attract vast amounts of user engagement—crucial for advertising revenue.
Another aspect of the DOJ’s proposal involves Google spinning off its open-source Chromium project, which powers browsers like Brave, Opera, and Microsoft Edge. Some experts worry that this could jeopardize the project, although others believe it would continue independently. Regardless, the impact of these changes would depend on the buyer and how they manage the browser’s distribution.
Even if Chrome were sold, it may not lead to a dramatic shift in search behavior. Users would likely continue turning to Google’s search engine, which remains synonymous with online searches. “I think Google Search will still be the most visited page,” Singh says. Chrome’s real impact on Google’s business is its role in supporting its highly effective advertising system.
The government also aims to prevent Google from using its platforms to unfairly promote its search engine. This includes banning Google from preloading its search service on Android or giving it preferential treatment on Google-owned apps. By removing this kind of self-preferencing, the government hopes to level the playing field for competitors.
The DOJ also seeks to force Google to share its search data with competitors at a marginal cost. This would break the self-reinforcing cycle that has helped Google maintain its search dominance. By sharing data on search queries and ranking signals, smaller search engines could improve their offerings and increase competition. This proposal is seen as one of the strongest, potentially cutting Google’s search revenue by up to 10%. The goal is to make the search market more competitive by giving rivals access to the data that has allowed Google to build its superior search engine.
Another significant proposal is a ban on Google’s exclusionary contracts with companies like Apple and Android phone manufacturers, which ensure that Google’s search engine is set as the default. These agreements are a key factor in Google’s dominance, but ending them could reduce Google’s revenue from search placement deals. However, some experts believe that Google may not suffer as much from this change as expected, as its brand power and user habits could still drive significant traffic to its search engine.
Furthermore, the DOJ’s proposal includes a choice screen for search engines on Chrome and Android, allowing users to select their preferred search engine. This idea has been tested in Europe with little success, but some believe that if implemented properly, it could reduce Google’s market share.
Finally, while the government has proposed a range of remedies, it notably did not request the sale of Android, Google’s mobile operating system. Losing Android would have a significant impact on Google’s ability to distribute its search engine, especially on mobile devices. Experts agree that selling Android would be far more damaging than selling Chrome, and could force Google to rethink its entire business model.
In summary, while the Justice Department’s proposals could significantly disrupt Google’s business, experts believe that the company will continue to thrive as long as it retains its core assets like YouTube, Google Search, and Android. The road ahead for Google is uncertain, but the proposed remedies are poised to reshape the competitive landscape in the search and tech industries.