Google has filed a formal counter to the U.S. government’s request that it divest its widely popular Chrome browser as part of a major antitrust crackdown. The company’s filing, submitted late Friday, proposes a legal solution aimed at addressing concerns over its business practices without necessitating the sale of its flagship browser. This proposal has set the stage for a new phase in a landmark trial that has already seen Google declared a monopoly by a U.S. District Court judge.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) launched the antitrust case against Google in 2020, accusing the tech giant of illegally maintaining a monopoly in the online search and advertising markets. As part of this case, the DOJ asked the court to force Google to break up its business by requiring the sale of Chrome and restricting its agreements with mobile manufacturers. The government’s argument hinges on claims that Google has used its dominant position in the market to unfairly promote its search engine and other services, leveraging its control over Android’s operating system and pre-installation of its apps on mobile devices.
In response, Google proposed a 12-page order that would allow the company to continue operating as usual while addressing some of the government’s concerns. Specifically, Google is calling for a judicial order that would bar it from conditioning the distribution or treatment of its software on mobile devices based on licensing deals with manufacturers. This includes banning Google from requiring that mobile device makers pre-install its search engine or set it as the default option as part of their agreements for distributing other Google apps like Chrome, Play, or Gemini.
The U.S. government’s November request for the dismantling of Google represents an aggressive stance on antitrust reform, something not seen since the failed attempt to break up Microsoft more than two decades ago. However, Google’s response suggests that there may be a less drastic way to address concerns about its market power, particularly its alleged anticompetitive agreements with smartphone manufacturers like Apple. These deals, which reportedly involve substantial payments to secure Google as the default search engine on iPhones and other devices, have been central to the antitrust case. Critics argue that such arrangements provided Google with an unfair advantage, granting it unparalleled access to user data and helping the company solidify its dominance in search.
As the case progresses, it will now be up to U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta to determine whether Google’s proposed order is sufficient to resolve the concerns raised by the DOJ. Judge Mehta had already ruled in August that Google holds a monopoly in the search engine market, a decision that set the stage for the current debate about how to address the company’s anticompetitive behavior. Google has signaled that it intends to appeal any unfavorable ruling, a move that could drag out the legal battle for years and ultimately leave the final decision in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The outcome of this case could have profound implications for the future of Big Tech regulation. If the DOJ prevails, the breakup of Google would mark a significant shift in the government’s approach to regulating tech giants, signaling a much tougher stance on monopolistic practices. However, a decision in Google’s favor or a settlement between the two parties could set a precedent for future antitrust cases involving tech companies.
Complicating matters further, the political landscape could shift dramatically with the arrival of President-elect Donald Trump’s administration in January. The new administration may bring in a new team at the DOJ’s antitrust division, potentially altering the course of the case. The incoming team could decide to continue with the litigation, pursue a settlement, or even abandon the case altogether.
As the case continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder of the growing scrutiny faced by tech giants like Google. With the potential to reshape the future of antitrust law and corporate regulation, this trial is one to watch closely in the coming months.
