Google Proposes Relaxing Search Deals After Antitrust Setback
Following a court ruling, Google suggests changes to search agreements while rejecting DOJ's demand to sell Chrome and Android.
3 min readHighlights
- Google suggests flexible search agreements, countering DOJ demands for selling Chrome and Android.
- DOJ’s proposals aim to break Google’s dominance by prohibiting exclusive deals and mandating data-sharing.
- The case’s outcome could reshape the search engine market and set new antitrust standards.
Source: By commons_wikimedia_ Tdorante10 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0
Google’s Proposal After Court Loss
Google has submitted new proposals to address concerns raised by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in an ongoing antitrust battle over search engine dominance. Following a court ruling in September 2024, which sided with the DOJ, Google is now appealing the decision while presenting remedies designed to address claims of monopolistic practices.
The DOJ’s lawsuit alleges that Google uses its market power to maintain control over search services and advertising, with claims that its agreements with browser companies and device manufacturers stifle competition.
Background of the Case
The legal battle began in October 2020 when the DOJ, alongside several state attorneys general, sued Google for violating antitrust laws. The case accused the company of engaging in practices that entrenched its monopoly in the search and advertising sectors.
In September 2024, Judge Amit Mehta ruled in favor of the DOJ, agreeing that Google’s practices unfairly limited competition. As part of the legal proceedings, both parties were required to submit proposals for remedies.
The DOJ’s demands were drastic, including:
- The sale of the Chrome browser.
- A potential divestiture of the Android operating system if no other measures sufficiently restored competition.
- Prohibiting exclusive search agreements with device manufacturers and browsers.
- Implementing mandatory data-sharing mechanisms to level the playing field.
Google’s Rebuttal to DOJ’s Demands
Google has labeled the DOJ’s proposals as extreme and counterproductive. Kent Walker, Google’s President of Global Affairs, argued that such remedies would severely disrupt its ecosystem of products and represent an unprecedented level of government intervention.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, added that the case primarily revolves around contractual agreements and not broader issues of competition.
Google continues to defend its position, stating:
“People don’t use Google because they have to — they use it because they want to.”
Google’s Alternative Proposal
Instead of complying with the DOJ’s structural remedies, Google has proposed less intrusive measures aimed at increasing competition. Key elements of its counter-proposal include:
- Browser Agreements: Browser companies like Apple and Mozilla would be allowed to negotiate multiple default search engine agreements across platforms, giving users more choice.
- Android Flexibility: Device manufacturers using Android would gain greater freedom to preload multiple search engines and Google apps independently.
- Compliance Monitoring: Google proposes implementing a monitoring system to ensure adherence to these agreements, enhancing transparency and oversight.
What Lies Ahead
A key hearing is scheduled for April 2025 to determine the final remedies. During this hearing, Google plans to appeal the court’s ruling while arguing that its proposed remedies sufficiently address the concerns raised about its search agreements.
The DOJ, however, remains steadfast in its demands for structural changes, claiming that Google’s proposals do not go far enough to restore competition.
Implications for the Search Engine Market
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the tech industry. If the court enforces the DOJ’s proposals, it could reshape the competitive dynamics of the search engine market. A forced divestiture of Chrome or Android would disrupt Google’s integrated ecosystem, potentially giving smaller players an opportunity to grow.
Google’s business model, which heavily relies on its search and advertising dominance, may also face challenges if these remedies are implemented. On the other hand, if Google’s proposals are accepted, it could mark a less disruptive resolution to the antitrust battle.
The Bigger Picture
This case highlights the growing scrutiny faced by tech giants over their market practices. Governments worldwide are increasingly examining how companies like Google wield their influence and whether it harms consumers and competition.
The decision in this case could set a precedent for future antitrust actions, shaping how regulators address monopolistic practices in the digital economy.
