Uncle Sam May Force Google To Sell Chrome Browser, Or Android OS

The US government has confirmed it is considering asking a judge to force Google to divest parts of its business as part of potential remedies in the antitrust case over its control of online searches.

In a proposed remedy framework [PDF] it filed yesterday, the Department of Justice's antitrust division laid out the various ways it might tackle what it calls Google's anticompetitive conduct in general search services and general search text advertising. The move follows the federal Judge Amit Mehta's ruling in August that the company does have a monopoly in areas such as search on mobile phones, and has acted to maintain that monopoly.

Yesterday's filing states that the government is considering "behavioral and structural remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features… over rivals or new entrants."

"Structural remedies" in cases such as these typically refers to the breaking up of a company into smaller businesses, or divestment of particular assets. In this specific case, that might mean Google's Chrome browser or its Android mobile operating system.

Google today characterized the move as "government overreach," and as "radical and sweeping proposals" it said would hurt developers and consumers, referring The Register to its statement. It added: "We believe that today's blueprint goes well beyond the legal scope of the Court's decision about Search distribution contracts. Government overreach in a fast-moving industry may have negative unintended consequences for American innovation and America's consumers. We look forward to making our arguments in court."

If the watchdog were to move forward with these remedies – and the court were to approve them – it would be the biggest antitrust breakup of a US company since ‎ United States v. AT&T in 1982. AT&T Corp was forced to agree to break up its American business into seven small units dubbed "Baby Bells." That divestiture took two years and was completed in 1984.

Those are big ifs, however. When it comes to the likelihood it will move forward with divestment and the court will agree, many will refer to exhibit: USA vs Microsoft Corp.

"As the Court recognized, Google's longstanding control of the Chrome browser, with its preinstalled Google search default, significantly narrows the available channels of distribution and thus disincentivizes the emergence of new competition," the DoJ's filing notes, adding that "Google Play Store is a must-have on all Android devices," and that the Android Agreements "are a critical tool for Google's anticompetitive limitations on distribution."

The DoJ goes on to claim it has "a duty to seek – and the Court has the authority to impose – an order that not only addresses the harms that already exist as a result of Google's illegal conduct, but also prevents and restrains recurrence of the same offense of illegal monopoly maintenance going forward." This might be interpreted as implying that structural remedies are required because behavioral remedies are often regarded as less effective and more difficult to enforce.

Within the proposed remedy framework, the DoJ says it is considering remedies to address four categories of harms related to Google's conduct, comprising search distribution and revenue sharing; generation and display of search results; advertising scale and monetization; and accumulation and use of data.

For each area, the remedies deemed necessary to prevent monopoly behavior are said to include contract requirements and prohibitions; non-discrimination product requirements; data and interoperability requirements; and those structural requirements.

Search and rescue

The document states that the starting point for addressing the search giant's unlawful conduct is undoing its effects on search distribution, noting that most devices in the US come preloaded with Google search.

Fully remedying these harms will require "not only ending Google's control of distribution today, but also ensuring Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow," the document notes with a sense of urgency.

• Google brings better bricking to Androids, to curtail crims
• Epic judge orders Google to let rivals set up app stores
• Rival browsers cry foul after Microsoft Edge slips through EU gatekeeper cracks
• Victims lose $70K to one single wallet-draining app on Google's Play Store

The DoJ is said to be evaluating remedies that would limit or prohibit preinstallation agreements and revenue-sharing arrangements for search and search-related products, and prevent the company from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage its own Google search and related products and features.

On the accumulation and use of data, the DoJ claims Google's "unlawful behavior" has enabled it to accumulate and use data at the expense of rivals. It says it is contemplating remedies that will somehow nullify this advantage by requiring the company to make available to others "the indexes, data, feeds, and models used for Google search," and "Google search results, features, and ads, including the underlying ranking signals, especially on mobile."

With the generation and display of search results, the concern is that these often rely on "websites and other content created by third parties, who have little-to-no bargaining power against Google's monopoly and who cannot risk retaliation or exclusion from Google," the document says.

To address this, the government says it is considering leveling the playing field by requiring the Mountain View firm to allow websites crawled for Google search to opt out of training or appearing in any Google-owned AI product or feature.

Finally, with advertising scale and monetization, the DoJ says that Google's monopoly has "undermined advertisers' choice of search providers" as well as the ability of rivals to monetize search advertising.

The DoJ said it was also evaluating remedies that involve licensing or syndication of Google's ad feed independent of its search results, and allowing Google search advertisers to receive transparent and detailed information relating to search text ad auctions and ad monetization.

As a measure of how seriously the antitrust watchdog is taking the enforcement of its remedies, it says it is considering asking the judge to require the Chocolate Factory to finance a court-appointed technical committee that would monitor its compliance and administer the remedies. It is also looking to designate a senior Google executive to be made regularly available to the court to report on the company's compliance.

The government is set to provide the court with a further refined Proposed Final Judgement in November 2024, with Revised Proposed Final Judgment expected in March 2025. ®