The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing significant legal hurdles in its ambitious efforts to challenge Alphabet Inc.’s dominance in the tech industry, particularly regarding the proposed forced sale of its widely used Google Chrome browser. Following a recent ruling that found Google guilty of illegally monopolizing the search market, DOJ prosecutors argued in court that the company must divest Chrome, share data and search results with competitors, and potentially sell its Android smartphone software.
These proposals are part of a landmark antitrust case aimed at reshaping how consumers access information online. However, experts warn that these measures may be perceived as excessive and could encounter substantial legal pushback.
Kevin Walkush from Jensen Investment Management expressed skepticism about the feasibility of a Chrome divestiture, suggesting that while the DOJ may present an extensive list of demands, the likelihood of achieving such drastic measures is low. “You ask for everything possible… and then see what sticks,” he remarked.
The DOJ’s approach echoes its earlier actions against Microsoft in the early 2000s, which ultimately led to a settlement after an appeals court overturned an initial breakup ruling. Analysts predict that the current case against Google could take years to resolve as the tech giant prepares to appeal any adverse decisions.
Google has vehemently criticized the DOJ’s strategy as “unprecedented government overreach,” arguing that it would negatively impact American consumers and small businesses. The company highlighted potential consequences, including reduced user privacy and diminished support for developers like Mozilla.
Adding complexity to the situation is the potential shift in priorities under President-elect Donald Trump’s administration. Although Trump’s previous term saw the initiation of antitrust proceedings against Google, recent comments suggest he may reconsider breaking up the company due to concerns about its impact on the broader tech industry amid rising competition with China.
Chrome, which commands approximately two-thirds of the global browser market, is integral to Google’s business model, providing critical user data that fuels its advertising revenue—over half of Alphabet’s total revenue of $88.3 billion in the last quarter. Experts argue that divesting Chrome would not effectively address the core issues raised by the DOJ regarding Google’s search monopoly.
Megan Gray, former general counsel at DuckDuckGo, explained that without its integration with Google’s advertising and search services, Chrome would lose much of its value and function merely as a data broker.
The DOJ’s proposals also include a ban on Google incentivizing preferential treatment for its search engine—a move seen by analysts as overly harsh and potentially ineffective. Given Google Search’s popularity, it is likely that Apple would continue using Google as its default search engine even without financial agreements.
Furthermore, the DOJ has suggested that Google should license its search results at minimal costs and share user data with competitors free of charge. Analysts have noted that while licensing search data could significantly benefit news publishers by enhancing audience insights, the overall implications remain unclear until more details emerge.
As this high-stakes antitrust battle unfolds, stakeholders across industries will be watching closely to see how these legal challenges develop and what they mean for the future of competition in technology.
Read more:
European Experts Advocate For Transparency In Litigation Funding At NYU Forum
What Is An Example Of An Antitrust Law?
What Is The Sherman Antitrust Act Of 1890?