To end Google’s illegal monopoly on how Americans search the internet, the U.S. Department of Justice wants the tech giant to end its lucrative partnership with Apple, share a trove of proprietary data with competitors and advertisers, and “quickly and completely divest itself of Google’s Chrome browser.” search engine that controls more than half American market. The government wants Google to sell Chrome to a buyer it approves, arguing that a divestment “would open monopolized markets to competition, remove barriers to entry, and ensure that practices that could result in unlawful monopolization no longer exist.”
The recommendations are part of a detailed plan that government lawyers submitted Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington as part of a federal antitrust case against Google that began in 2020. Mehta is expected to decide by August next year which of the possible remedies countermeasures that Google will need to implement to loosen its grip on the search market.
However, the tech giant could still appeal, delaying the judge’s execution for years into the future. Google has already done this he argued that the expected proposals would threaten users’ privacy and security and reduce the convenience of using the services.
There is disagreement among people who have worked for Google or worked closely with the company as to whether any of the proposed solutions will significantly change user behavior or raise the competitiveness of the search engine market. Four former Google executives who oversaw teams working on Chrome, search and advertising told WIRED that innovation from rivals, rather than government intervention, is the surest way to unseat Google as the country’s dominant online search provider. “You can’t shove an inferior product down people’s throats,” says one former Chrome leader, speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect professional relationships.
However, the former Chrome engineering leader admitted that the search engine could have been a better product if it had not been tied to Google’s other business interests. They claim that Google blocked the introduction of user-friendly features because it would hurt the company’s advertising revenue, which depends on people clicking on ads in search results. “Why isn’t autofill better? Why isn’t the “new tab” page more effective? Why isn’t browser history better?” – says the former leader, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. Answer: “There are all these incentives to get users to search.” Google did not respond to a request for comment on this claim.
Still, competitors who could benefit from even a petite reduction in Google’s power are sanguine about expected remedies. “I see a lot of benefit from putting [Chrome] back into the hands of the community,” says Guillermo Rauch, CEO of Vercel, a company that develops tools for websites, many of which depend on search traffic and advertising revenue controlled by Google. “Moderating relationships with corporate overlords will always be a healthy thing,” Rauch says.