Earlier this week, reports emerged that the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) was planning to seek a court order mandating the breakup of Google, focusing particularly on the sale of its Chrome browser. On Wednesday night, these speculations were confirmed with the filing of official paperwork. However, the scope of the proposed actions appears even more extensive than initially thought.
The filing, submitted to a Washington federal court, not only suggests the forced sale of Chrome but also proposes a significant restriction: Google would be barred from reentering the browser market for five years following the divestiture. This stipulation was explicitly outlined in the document, which stated, “Following its divestiture of Chrome [Google] may not reenter the browser market for five years” (as reported by The Guardian).
The DoJ’s proposal goes beyond browsers. It recommends barring Google from acquiring stakes in competing search platforms, potential market entrants, or rival AI products related to search or search advertising. Additionally, Google would be required to relinquish any such interests it currently holds. Another significant aspect of the proposal is a halt to “anticompetitive payments to distributors, including Apple,” which secure Google’s position as the default search engine on various devices.
Addressing artificial intelligence, the DoJ proposes that Google provide “data crawling rights” to content creators, enabling them to opt out of having their work used to train Google’s AI systems. This move comes amid growing frustration with the proliferation of AI-generated content in search results, which many argue undermines the quality of online information. From a personal standpoint, even casual internet users might find relief in measures aimed at reducing the regurgitation of original work by AI. If enforced, this could be a significant step toward addressing such concerns.
This filing is the latest chapter in an ongoing legal battle. In August, a court ruled that Google had acted unlawfully to maintain its dominance in the online search and advertising markets. Subsequently, in October, the DoJ began outlining potential remedies targeting Android and Chrome, citing their roles in unfairly prioritizing Google’s search and related services.
The proposed remedies are being presented to Judge Amit Mehta, who delivered the August ruling against Google. While Judge Mehta will ultimately decide the course of action, his decision is not expected until next year. Until then, the impact on everyday users remains uncertain, particularly since Google has not yet offered any counterproposals.
The federal filing also highlights Android’s pivotal role in Google’s dominance, identifying it as “a critical platform on which search competitors rely and for which Google has myriad obvious and not-so-obvious ways to favor its own search product.” Two potential scenarios are laid out: either Google must sell off Android alongside Chrome, or the sale of Android will be considered a last resort if other measures fail to curb its monopoly.
Google’s response to the filing has been both firm and defensive. In a recent blog post, the company characterized the DoJ’s proposals as part of a “radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership.” Kent Walker, Google’s president of Global Affairs, further argued, “It would break a range of Google products — even beyond Search — that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives.”
The situation draws comparisons to the landmark United States v. Microsoft Corp. case in 2001. In that instance, the DoJ sought to split Microsoft over its dominance in the web browser market on Windows platforms. However, the case concluded with a settlement rather than the drastic measures initially sought. With this precedent in mind, it remains unclear how far the DoJ will push its case against Google.
As the legal battle unfolds, the stakes for Google—and the broader tech industry—are immense. The outcomes could reshape the landscape of online search, advertising, and browser markets, potentially leveling the playing field for competitors. Whether these proposals will ultimately be enforced or lead to a settlement, they signal a decisive moment in the fight against alleged monopolistic practices by one of the world’s largest tech giants.
