The Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed that Google must divest its Chrome web browser to restore competition in the online search market. This recommendation is part of the DOJ’s broader antitrust efforts against the tech giant. Additionally, the government has left open the possibility of requiring Google to spin off its Android business if other remedies fail to address the competitive imbalance effectively.
In a filing submitted late Wednesday to the DC District Court, the DOJ presented its initial proposed final judgment, elaborating on remedies previously outlined. This follows a ruling by Judge Amit Mehta, who found Google guilty of maintaining an unlawful monopoly in search and search advertising. The filing outlines an array of measures aimed at curbing Google’s dominance, ranging from restrictions on business practices to potentially breaking up parts of the company.
Central to the DOJ’s proposal is the demand for Google to spin off its Chrome browser, which the government views as a crucial gateway for online searches. While the DOJ has stopped short of immediately calling for the separation of Google’s Android division, it has suggested that such a move could be warranted in the future. The DOJ believes the possibility of an Android spin-off might serve as a deterrent against Google undermining other remedies. Moreover, the government notes that divesting Android could become necessary if alternative solutions fail to restore competition effectively. It even suggests Google might voluntarily choose divestiture to avoid complying with certain proposed restrictions, such as limitations on self-preferencing Google Search in Android.
The DOJ’s filing also proposes several additional remedies to promote fair competition. Among these is a prohibition against Google offering financial incentives or other benefits to third parties, including Apple and other smartphone manufacturers, to make Google Search the default search engine or discourage the adoption of rival search engines. Furthermore, the DOJ wants to ban Google from prioritizing its own search engine on platforms it owns, such as YouTube or Gemini. It also seeks to require Google to grant competitors access to its search index at minimal cost and to share its search results, ranking signals, and U.S.-generated query data for a decade. Another proposed measure includes allowing websites to opt out of Google’s AI overviews without facing penalties in search rankings.
Google responded sharply to these proposals, criticizing them as excessive and harmful. In a blog post, Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker described the DOJ’s recommendations as a “radical interventionist agenda” that could undermine U.S. technological leadership and harm consumers. Walker argued that the proposed measures go “wildly overboard” in their scope and implications.
The legal proceedings are set to continue, with the DOJ expected to file a revised version of its proposed remedies in early March. A remedies trial is scheduled for April, during which the court will evaluate the most effective ways to restore competition in the search and advertising markets. This phase marks the second stage of litigation, with Judge Mehta tasked with deciding on appropriate remedies following his earlier ruling on Google’s monopolistic practices.
The timing of the remedies trial is notable, as it will occur under a new presidential administration. This could influence the DOJ’s approach to enforcement and the specific solutions it pursues. However, the origins of the case date back to the Trump administration, signaling that Google is unlikely to escape scrutiny regardless of political shifts.
In parallel, Google is also grappling with another antitrust case focusing on its advertising technology business. Closing arguments for that case are scheduled to take place on Monday in Alexandria, Virginia, further intensifying the company’s legal battles with federal regulators.
The DOJ’s push for significant changes at Google underscores its commitment to curbing monopolistic behavior in the tech industry. Whether the proposed measures will gain judicial approval and effectively foster competition remains to be seen, but the outcomes of these cases could have profound implications for Google’s future and the broader technology landscape.