DOJ Orders Google to Sell Chrome to End Search Monopoly: A Possible Game-Changer for Competition

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed a series of remedies to curb Google’s dominance in the online search market. This proposal includes a demand of selling Google Chrome, one of the most popular internet browser on the market. 

The move is part of a broader legal effort to dismantle what the DOJ describes as Google’s “search monopoly,” which has long been a point of contention among competitors and regulators alike.

This proposal, filed in late November 2024, comes after a landmark ruling in August, where District Judge Amit Mehta found that Google had illegally maintained its monopoly in the search market, stifling competition through exclusionary practices. 

The DOJ’s Remedy: Sell Google Chrome And More

The DOJ’s filing includes several key proposals aimed at breaking Google’s stranglehold on both search services and the advertising space that surrounds them. One of the most interesting points in the proposal is the forced divestiture of Google Chrome, which has been a critical part of Google’s ability to funnel users to its search engine. The DOJ argues that Google’s control over Chrome and its integration with Android has allowed the company to funnel user data to itself, preventing rivals from gaining a foothold in the search market. 

The proposed divestiture of Chrome is a direct response to Google’s “Chrome monopoly,” which, according to government attorneys, has played a pivotal role in blocking competition. “Restoring competition in the markets for general search and search text advertising requires reactivating the competitive process that Google has long stifled,” the DOJ’s filing states. By removing Google’s control over Chrome, the DOJ believes it will open up the search market and give competitors a fairer chance. 

In addition to selling Chrome, the DOJ has proposed several other measures to ensure that Google does not circumvent the proposed remedies. These include restrictions on Google’s contracts with companies like Apple and Samsung, which currently make Google Search the default on many mobile devices and browsers.  

The DOJ seeks to prevent Google from entering into such exclusive agreements, which have been deemed anticompetitive, and to prohibit any future payments or incentives that could keep its search engine as the default option on devices. 

Google’s Response

Google, unsurprisingly, has pushed back against the DOJ’s proposals. Kent Walker, Google’s President of Global Affairs, criticized the DOJ’s intervention, calling it a “radical interventionist agenda” that could harm both consumers and America’s technology leadership.  

“The DOJ’s wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court’s decision,” Walker stated, adding that it would have negative consequences for users who rely on Google’s products. Google has until December 20, 2024, to file its own proposed remedies, and Judge Mehta is expected to issue a final decision by the summer of 2025. 

Despite Google’s opposition, the DOJ’s case against the company is gaining traction, with a coalition of states backing the federal government’s effort to break up Google’s monopoly. These states argue that the proposed remedies will help open up the search market, fostering innovation and providing consumers with better choices. 

The Impact of Google’s Dominance 

Google’s control of the search market is staggering. According to data from Statcounter, Google’s search engine accounts for around 90% of all online searches globally. This dominance has been further entrenched by its control over key distribution channels, including Chrome and Android.

The DOJ argues that Google’s vast data advantage, accumulated through its monopolistic control, has allowed the company to refine its search algorithms and advertising systems, giving it an unfair edge in the marketplace. 

Professor Laura Phillips-Sawyer from the University of Georgia School of Law explains that Google’s control of user data has created an environment where competitors struggle to innovate.

“Without the ability to reach consumers, no one will invest in search innovation,” Phillips-Sawyer noted. By requiring Google to divest Chrome and open up access to its search index, the DOJ’s remedies aim to level the playing field and provide space for new entrants to compete. 

A Long Road Ahead

While the DOJ’s proposals are seen as a major step toward restoring competition in the search market, the road to implementation will be long and complicated. With the new administration under President-elect Donald Trump set to take office in January 2025, questions have arisen about whether his government will continue to support the case. Legal experts, however, suggest that the federal government is likely to stay committed to the case, as the DOJ originally filed it during Trump’s first term. 

Even if there is a shift in political leadership, the states involved in the case could continue to push for the proposed remedies on their own. “It would be odd for the second Trump administration to back off a lawsuit they filed themselves,” said Rebecca Allensworth, an antitrust expert at Vanderbilt Law School. “The federal government will stay on it, but the intensity of their push may change.” 

Conclusion

The DOJ’s proposal is seen by many experts as a necessary intervention to counterbalance Google’s power in the online search and advertising markets. The goal is to dismantle the exclusionary practices that have kept rivals from competing effectively, including Google’s use of exclusive contracts and its manipulation of user data. If successful, the remedy could lead to a more competitive ecosystem, where consumers have more choices and advertisers have greater control over their campaigns. 

The remedy includes several provisions aimed at increasing transparency and reducing switching costs for advertisers. Google’s monopoly has allowed the company to charge inflated prices for search ads while providing advertisers with less information. Under the proposed changes, Google would be required to provide more real-time data on ad performance and allow advertisers greater control over keyword matching. 

Source: Read More