Google asks federal judge to take ‘caution’ while crafting monopoly remedy

WASHINGTON (CN) — Google urged a federal judge to take caution when deciding how to address the tech giant’s internet search monopoly Friday, in its proposed final judgment for a looming remedy trial.

The filing follows the Justice Department’s suggestion last month that U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta order Google to sell off its Chrome browser and Android operating system to make internet search competitive again.

Google asked the Barack Obama appointee to allow it to continue paying for its default status on search engines on a year-to-year basis, but a company like Apple could still set a different default browser and receive bids from other search engines.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in a blog-post that Google will appeal Mehta’s remedy decision to the D.C. Circuit, which would have to be resolved before the remedies could be implemented.

Mulholland, promising to appeal Mehta’s decision following the remedy-phase trial, said in the statement that the tech giant’s proposed changes were not made lightly.

“They would come at a cost to our partners by regulating how they must go about picking the best search engine for their customers,” Mulholland wrote, arguing that contracts with them have been good for consumers.

“But we believe that they fully address the court’s findings, and do so without putting Americans’ privacy and security at risk or harming America’s global technology leadership,” she said.

In its proposal, Google argued that artificial intelligence would change the internet search market so quickly that, if Mehta were to apply Google’s proposed changes, they should only last for three years rather than the 10 the Justice Department had suggested.

“Regulating a fast-changing industry like search with an invasive decree like the one proposed by Plaintiffs’ would harm competition, innovation and consumers,” Google said.

Under Google’s proposal, companies like Apple could also have several default browser agreements for different devices like iPhone and iPad. Further, phone manufacturers like Android could have more flexibility and preload certain Google apps without the condition they also preload Google Search or Chrome.

In its filing, Google argued that both D.C. Circuit precedent and the Sherman Act itself require significant justification for “extraordinary remedies” like ordering the divestiture of Google Chrome and Android.

“To state the obvious, the ‘mere existence of an exclusionary act does not itself justify full feasible relief against the monopolist to create maximum competition,’” Google said, citing the landmark *United States v. Microsoft. *

Mehta must “tailor the relief” to fit the exact wrong Google had committed, “monopoly maintenance,” Google said. Google argued that its proposal meets those measurements, unlike the Justice Department’s “unprecedented and sweeping remedies.”

Google challenged the government’s basis for its proposal, asserting that the Justice Department had failed to show clear causation between Google’s statutory violations and the resulting benefits.

The Justice Department also addressed the issue of generative artificial intelligence, which has become an issue in the case with Google’s introduction of the controversial product into its search engine.

In October, the feds warned that AI could allow Google to maintain its status quo of dominating internet search even after Mehta decided on a remedy.

Google pushed back on those worries, with Mulholland writing “Since the trial ended over a year ago, AI has already rapidly reshaped the industry, with new entrants and new ways of finding information, making it even more competitive."

At an Oct. 24 hearing, Mehta suggested he was open to allowing the Justice Department to seek documents about the tech giant’s use of AI, on the condition the request remain narrow to avoid any delays in the proceedings.

The hearing was the first in a series of status conferences Mehta scheduled leading up to an April 11 pretrial conference. After the lengthy trial, Google is posed to appeal Mehta’s decision to the D.C. Circuit and eventually to the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Mehta scheduled the next hearing in the case for Jan. 17, 2025.

Follow @Ryan_Knappy