Doj Asks Judge To Break Up Google

The Department of Justice asked a federal judge Wednesday to force Google to sell off its popular Chrome browser and impose restrictions on how it uses artificial intelligence and its Android mobile operating system in a bid to break up the company’s illegal monopoly over the search engine market.

Antitrust experts have called the DOJ’s plan to break up Google historic. Efforts by Washington to require that companies divest major parts of their business in response to antitrust violations are rarely successful — even after losing its competition case more than two decades ago, Microsoft was able to stave off a proposed breakup of the company on appeal.

In a final proposal filed late on Wednesday, DOJ lawyers said the tech giant’s ownership of Chrome “fortified [Google’s] dominance” in search, and that forcing a sale of the platform is necessary to remedy its illegal monopoly.

The agency wrote essentially the same thing about Android — it said Google’s control of the operating system gives it “myriad obvious and not-so-obvious ways to favor its own search products” — but stopped short of recommending a divestiture, which it called “the most straightforward solution.” It instead asked the judge to impose behavioral remedies that would “blunt Google’s ability to use its control of the Android ecosystem to favor its general search services and search text ad monopolies.” And the government warned that if those remedies fail to achieve meaningful relief, the court could still require Google to sell off Android.

The DOJ also took aim at Google’s AI practices, warning that the fast-moving technology can affect market dynamics in search both now and in the future. It asked the judge to impose remedies that prevent Google from “manipulating the development and deployment” of query-based AI solutions and other technologies “that provide the most likely long-term path for a new generation of search competitors.”

A forced sale of Chrome and changes to Google’s Android and AI plans would send ripples across the tech economy. And while some observers say a breakup would boost competition and innovation, others believe it would negatively impact app developers, small tech firms and others reliant on the tech giant’s sprawling online infrastructure.

In a statement, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, said the DOJ “continues to push a radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case.”

“The government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed,” Mulholland said.

The background: Google lost its antitrust case in August when Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the company illegally monopolized the online search and advertising markets. The DOJ filed prospective remedies in October that raised the possibility of even more aggressive requirements, including the forced sale of Google’s Android operating system.

The backlash: In the wake of a Bloomberg News report on Monday that laid out the broad contours of the DOJ’s proposal, many tech lobbying groups rushed to condemn the plan and warn of its impact on small businesses.

“The extreme remedies recommended by the Department of Justice benefit no one other than Google’s business competitors while harming both the consumers who really like Google services and the developers who benefit from the current ecosystem,” Chris Mohr, president of the Software and Information Industry Association, said in a statement.

Rob Retzlaff, executive director of the Connected Commerce Council, said the proposed remedies are a “massive blunder” that would “severely harm” small businesses that “leverage Google’s secure, cost-effective integrated tools to run and grow their businesses.”

And Patrick Hedger, director of policy at NetChoice, said the proposal would “subsidize Google’s less-innovative competitors, while punishing Google for the crime of having the best product — abandoning consumer welfare for crony welfare.”

All of the above tech lobbying groups either partner with Google or count the tech giant as a member.

The cheerleaders: While advocacy groups were generally more circumspect ahead of the DOJ’s official filing, some urged the government to take aggressive measures against Google’s expansive market power.

“Google’s dominance in search and its aggressive leveraging of that power into emerging AI markets pose a clear danger to competition, innovation, and the integrity of our information ecosystem,” Courtney Radsch, director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty at the progressive Open Markets Institute, said in a statement. “The remedies outlined by the DOJ must not only address past harms but prevent future abuses that could further entrench Google’s power over innovators, content creators, news publishers, and consumers worldwide.”

Next steps: Google is expected to file its counter to the DOJ’s proposed remedies on Dec. 20. A hearing on remedies is expected in April 2025, and Mehta is expected to issue a final ruling by August. Google has said it will appeal, likely dragging out a final resolution for years.