By David McCabe and Nico Grant
Last week, Google communicated its perspective on how to address a ruling stating it had unlawfully preserved a monopoly over online search: very little needs to change.
This proposal came after Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a groundbreaking ruling in August, declaring that Google had illegally sustained a monopoly in online search by compensating firms like Apple and Samsung to ensure its search engine defaults when users access a web browser or smartphone. In reaction, the government requested the judge to compel Google to divest Chrome, the leading web browser globally, along with other measures.
In its own plan to rectify the search monopoly, Google requested Mehta’s permission to keep compensating other firms for top positioning of its search engine. However, it suggested these agreements should be less stringent than in previous arrangements.
For instance, Apple could be allowed to choose various search engines to appear automatically for iPhone and iPad users, stated Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company’s vice president of regulatory affairs, in a blog. Manufacturers of mobile phones running Google’s widely-used Android operating system could also incorporate multiple search engines and have the option to install other Google applications without having to install its search engine or the Gemini AI assistant.
“We don’t propose these changes lightly,” she remarked. “However, we believe that they adequately address the court’s conclusions, while ensuring Americans’ privacy and security remain protected and preserving America’s leading position in global technology.”
Mulholland noted that Google intends to appeal Mehta’s decision once he rules on remedies sometime next year.
Mehta’s decision could transform the foundation of Google, a $2.35 trillion corporation, and significantly impact the broader digital economy. Last year, Google derived over half of its revenue — $175 billion — from search and related sectors, and the brand’s name has become synonymous with online searching.
Google’s efforts to counteract the government’s expansive demands — the most consequential remedy requests in a tech monopoly case since the Justice Department sought to dismantle Microsoft in 2000 — could establish a precedent for a series of other antitrust cases that confront the supremacy of major tech companies.
The Justice Department has initiated legal action against Apple, asserting that the firm complicates consumers’ ability to exit its tightly controlled ecosystem of devices and software. In the upcoming year, the Federal Trade Commission is set to try cases against Meta, alleging that it stifled competition through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The agency has also pursued legal action against Amazon, alleging it unlawfully safeguards a monopoly in online retail, and is probing Microsoft’s influence in cloud computing and AI.
A separate case from the Justice Department against Google, claiming it has a monopoly in advertising technology, is awaiting a federal judge’s ruling in the next weeks.
Regarding the search case, initiated in 2020 during the tenure of now President-elect Donald Trump, Mehta concurred with the government that Google enjoyed a prolonged period of dominance.
During a 10-week trial last year, attorneys from the Justice Department asserted that Google had excluded competitors by forming agreements with Apple, Mozilla, Samsung, and others to be the default search engine when users launch a smartphone or a new browser tab. Evidence presented at the trial revealed Google paid $26.3 billion in 2021 for these arrangements.
Google contended that the agreements did not violate any laws and that users opted for Google due to its superior ability to provide relevant search results versus alternatives like Microsoft’s Bing or DuckDuckGo, which offers enhanced privacy.
In addition to divesting Chrome, the government proposed a potential sale of Android, Google’s mobile operating system. It also urged the court to restrict the company from entering into compensation agreements with Apple and others for automatic selection as the search engine on smartphones and browsers. Furthermore, the government suggested that Google permit rival search engines to display its results and gain access to its data for ten years.
Additionally, the government urged that Google, parented by Alphabet, be mandated to divest any stakes in AI products that might compete with search, in an effort to prevent the company from monopolizing emerging technology.
Google called on Mehta to pursue a more restrained approach to alleviate these issues. Besides providing opportunities for other search engines to vie for optimal placement on devices and browsers, Google suggested that web browser developers like Apple and Mozilla should be able to alter their default search engines every 12 months.
The company outlined what it termed in its blog post as a “robust mechanism” to adhere to the court’s requirements, while avoiding “granting the government excessive authority over the shaping of your online experience.”
Google proposed that its plan be valid for three years, contrasting with the government’s recommended changes which would last a decade.
“The speed of innovation in search has been remarkable, and we have every reason to expect that it will persist as advancements in artificial intelligence swiftly alter online products and services,” Google stated in the filing.
Google asserted that the government was seeking a ruling from the judge that “exceeds the anticompetitive behavior established during the trial.”
The company referenced a 1955 ruling from a federal court, which stated that even when a company is found to have violated antitrust regulations, a court does not possess “permission to embark on an overarching program of comprehensive control over the defendants’ operations.”
