The Department of Justice (DOJ) is not backing down: it still wants Google to sell off its Chrome browser. In its final proposed remedy filing, the DOJ has reiterated its stance that Google should cease paying partners for preferential search placement and, more significantly, divest its dominant Chrome browser.
Filed on a Friday afternoon, the proposal asserts that Google must "promptly and fully divest Chrome, along with any assets or services necessary to successfully complete the divestiture, to a buyer approved by the Plaintiffs in their sole discretion, subject to terms that the Court and Plaintiffs approve." The DOJ is also pushing for Google to seek prior notification for any new ventures that might pose a threat to competitors.
"Through its sheer size and unrestricted power, Google has robbed consumers and businesses of a fundamental promise owed to the public—their right to choose among competing services," the DOJ stated.
The DOJ initiated its antitrust case against Google back in 2020, marking the most significant tech antitrust action since the case against Microsoft in the 1990s. The core allegation is that Google has been employing anticompetitive tactics to safeguard its search dominance, forging contracts that ensure it remains the default search engine on web browsers and smartphones. This dominance, the lawsuit claims, allows Google to manipulate ad auction systems, inflate prices for advertisers, and ultimately, amass greater revenue.
Google, however, defends its position by arguing that its success is a result of superior search technology. The company also maintains that users can easily switch their default search engine and that it faces stiff competition from Microsoft and other players in the market.
"DOJ’s sweeping proposals continue to go miles beyond the court’s decision, and would harm America’s consumers, economy and national security," said Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels.
In August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google has indeed maintained an illegal monopoly in both general search and general search text ads. The ruling heavily scrutinized Google's contracts with device makers and browser partners, which ensure Google is the default search technology. According to Mehta's findings, approximately 70 percent of search queries in the US originate from portals where Google is the default search engine.
In November, government attorneys submitted a detailed plan that included several recommendations:
Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and chief legal officer, criticized the proposal as a "radical interventionist agenda" that would compromise the security and privacy of millions of Americans and stifle innovation.
In response, Google proposed:
The official remedy reinforces calls for a breakup of part of Google’s core business. Google has already indicated its intention to appeal whatever remedy is issued. Arguments for the proposals are scheduled for April in Mehta’s court.
Paul Swanson, a litigation partner at Holland & Hart LLP, suggests that the government’s remedies may be a "maximalist opening position" for negotiation. He added, "The one through-line here is that this administration wants to be perceived as being tough on tech, but also not slow the growth of America’s tech industries. So they may signal more action than what they ultimately want."