Following its earlier antitrust trial victory against Google, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has outlined a bold plan to reshape Google’s search business. The DOJ has proposed significant measures, including requiring Google to divest its Chrome browser, syndicate its search results, and avoid entering exclusive agreements with companies like Apple for default search engine placement. The possibility of forcing Google to sell its Android operating system has also been left on the table.
In response, Google has offered a far more modest counterproposal: it suggests a prohibition on default search placement agreements, but only for a three-year period.
Earlier, a federal court found Google guilty of unlawfully monopolizing online search, and any remedies are meant to level the playing field for competitors. While Google disputes the monopoly finding, it is working to mitigate the potential consequences if it ultimately loses the case. By presenting its proposal, Google aims to limit the scope of the remedies imposed.
Google’s argument focuses on search agreements, which were central to the DOJ’s case. The tech giant’s proposal would prevent it from striking deals with Android phone manufacturers that make Google Search the default in exchange for access to other Google apps. Google would also be barred from requiring phone makers to exclude rival search engines or third-party browsers. Additionally, browser developers like Mozilla would gain greater flexibility in setting competitors’ search engines as their defaults.
The most notable concession in Google’s proposal involves its longstanding, multibillion-dollar search deal with Apple. Under the proposed terms, Google would be prohibited from entering agreements that make its search engine the default on Apple features like Siri and Spotlight in the U.S. unless Apple has the option to choose a different default search engine annually. The agreement would also need to explicitly allow Apple to promote other search engines.
Google also addressed DOJ concerns about its potential to lock out rivals in AI-powered search tools and chatbots. The company has proposed that it should be restricted from requiring phone manufacturers to include its Gemini Assistant mobile app as a condition for accessing other Google services.
While the DOJ has suggested these restrictions remain in place for ten years, Google argues that three years would be sufficient. It reasons that the fast-paced innovation in the search industry makes lengthy regulation unnecessary and potentially harmful to technological progress.
If the court sides with Google’s pared-down proposal, the company would avoid some lucrative and strategically advantageous agreements, such as its default search arrangement with Apple. However, Google would maintain the core of its business without needing to divest Chrome or face the risk of an Android sell-off. It would also retain control over much of the data and algorithms that underpin its search engine, preventing competitors from gaining the insights needed to challenge its dominance effectively—a key objective of the DOJ’s proposals.
Both the DOJ’s and Google’s remedies are seen as starting points for the court to consider. Google is banking on the notion that its streamlined plan, which addresses specific concerns raised during the trial, will be more palatable to the court than the DOJ’s far-reaching proposals. The company is also framing the government’s suggestions as overly broad and potentially vulnerable to being overturned on appeal.
However, not everyone is pleased with Google’s approach. DuckDuckGo, a privacy-focused search engine and one of Google’s competitors, has criticized the proposal. “Google’s proposal attempts to maintain the status quo and change as little as possible,” said Kamyl Bazbaz, a DuckDuckGo spokesperson. This sentiment underscores the broader concerns from smaller players in the industry, who view Google’s offer as insufficient to create a genuinely competitive search market.
Both parties will present their arguments in federal court in Washington, D.C., starting on April 22. The outcome will have significant implications not only for Google but also for the broader tech landscape, as it could set a precedent for how regulators address monopolistic behavior in the digital era.