Google argues DOJ internet search monopoly remedies will harm consumers

WASHINGTON (CN) — In a pre-hearing brief filed Monday night, Google argued that the Justice Department’s proposal to break off key parts of the tech giant, such as its Google Chrome browser and Android services, as a remedy for its internet search market is anticompetitive and would harm consumers.

The brief previews how the company will defend its dominance in the search market during a looming remedy trial set to begin April 21, where U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta will decide how to open internet search competitive again.

“[The Justice Department’s] result-oriented purpose is to force consumers, browser developers and sellers of Android mobile devices to use rival search engines — even though rivals are demonstrably inferior to Google and consumers overwhelmingly prefer Google,” the company wrote.

The Justice Department has proposed that Mehta, a Barack Obama appointee, could order such divestments — as it would follow other landmark antitrust decisions, such as Standard Oil’s case in 1911 — or otherwise propose hefty fines, or merely enjoin Google from engaging in monopolistic behavior, such as its billion-dollar default agreements with Apple.

In its initial proposal, the Justice Department urged Mehta to also force Google to divest its Artificial Intelligence investments, expressing concern that Google could use its AI products to effectively circumvent any court-ordered remedy.

The Justice Department reversed course in its revised final proposal — following President Donald Trump’s inauguration — citing evidence brought up during the remedy discovery phase that such divestment “could cause unintended consequences” in the fast-moving AI space.

“This extraordinary market intervention, supposedly necessary to restore user-data scale that rivals were denied by exclusive agreements, is based on a false premise: that plaintiffs have adduced evidence that any party to a Google distribution agreement wanted to preload a rival or set a rival as a default but did not as a result of an agreement with Google,” the company said.

Google warned that adopting the Justice Department’s proposals would “imperil” browser developers, jeopardize the digital security of millions of customers and impede innovation.

Google said the Justice Department had failed to provide proof that such potential remedies would result in a more competitive landscape, pointing to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in the landmark U.S. v. Microsoft. The 2001 case was the first, and only, example where the government attempted a major breakup of a tech company, that ultimately resulted in a settlement.

In the alternative, Google has urged Mehta to “take caution” while crating the remedy, suggesting he could allow it to continue paying for its default status on search engines on a year-to-year basis, but also allow companies like Apple to set a different default browser on different devices and receive bids from other companies.

In Monday’s filing, Google argued that its remedies would directly address Mehta’s concern regarding the monopolistic default agreements.

“These remedies ensure that Android smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers have unprecedented flexibility in deciding when and how to preload or set a search engine as default across any and all search access points — flexibility that goes far beyond what any court would find necessary to qualify an agreement as non-exclusive,” Google said.

The tech giant’s remedies would also address any concerns regarding AI, as Google agreed to “distribution restrictions” on its Gemini AI app, even though the government’s experts have not suggested Google has any sort of dominance in the AI market.

“In sum, Google’s proposed remedies address much more than the specific conduct the court found to be anticompetitive in the liability phase of this case and provide rivals the opportunity to innovate and compete on the merits in the future while preserving Google’s innovation incentives,” Google wrote.

A 15-day evidentiary hearing will begin on April 21 and run through May 9, with either side receiving seven days each to present evidence and question witnesses, which the parties provided last Wednesday.

The Justice Department listed 19 witnesses it expects to call, including several senior Google officials like Sissie Hsiao, General Manager of the company’s artificial intelligence Gemini app, as well as Nick Turley, the head of product of ChatGPT at OpenAI, among other officials from Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, Microsoft and more.

Google’s witness list of 20 includes Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Senior VP of Services at Apple, Eduardo Cue — both of whom testified during the liability phase of the antitrust trial.

Follow @Ryan_Knappy