Google calls the US Department of Justice’s proposed antitrust remedies ‘extreme’
What you need to know
- The U.S. DOJ won its antitrust case against Google, but the two sides recently finished their remedies hearing, where each made their case as to what changes Google should have to make to its business.
- The DOJ wants Google to cease promotional deals involving Google Search and to divest the Chrome browser.
- Google is responding to the government’s proposals by calling them “extreme,” and saying they would “hurt consumers.”
A U.S. District Court judge ruled in August 2024 that Google’s search engine dominance was attributed to antitrust violations, saying that “Google is a monopolist.” That isn’t the end of the high-profile antitrust case between the U.S. government and Google, however.
Now, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Google are both sharing proposed remedies with Judge Amit Mehta, who will eventually decide what measures the company will need to take to correct its monopoly. Following the weeks-long remedies hearing, the DOJ recommended the court require Google to divest Chrome — its browser with close ties to Google Search — and cease promotional agreements that put Search in the hands of users.
Google now has a public response to the DOJ’s proposed remedies. In a blog post published today, May 9, the company called the government’s remedies “extreme.” Google claims being forced to sell Chrome and stop creating promotional agreements for Search would “hurt consumers and America’s tech leadership.”
Today we wrapped our case in the DOJ search remedies trial. Some key points from court this week ⬇️May 8, 2025
Specifically, Google pushes back on the concept that promotional agreements for Search are inherently anti-competitive. This is largely in reference to Google’s deal with Apple, which was brought up during the trial. This promotional agreement in particular pays Apple $20 billion annually to make Google Search the default browser on iPhone.
The DOJ wants these payments to stop, but Google says these kinds of deals are simply part of the evolving nature of competition. The company cites Apple’s deal with OpenAI and Motorola’s deal with Perplexity and Microsoft as evidence of other brands taking similar steps to get their products in the hands of users.
During the trial and remedies hearings, brands paid by Google to make Search the default search engine took defense of the Mountain View-based company. Apple’s Senior Vice President of Services Eddy Cue told the court that AI is already making Google less of an antitrust threat. Additionally, Mozilla executives said that without Google’s search payments, Firefox would be “put out of business”
Meanwhile, the blog post claims divesting Chrome “would break it” and make it “a shadow of the current Chrome,” in Google’s view.
The conclusion of the remedies hearing in United States of America v. Google means that we’re one step closer to learning what changes Google will have to make to its business. Judge Mehta has now heard arguments from both the DOJ and Google as to what those measures will be, and is expected to order remedies this summer.
Post Comment