Justice Department urges federal judge to order Google to sell off Chrome browser as monopoly remedy

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Justice Department reasserted its position that Google should be forced to divest key parts of its business, such as Google Chrome and its Android operating system, to remedy its illegal monopoly over internet search in a filing Wednesday night.

The feds laid out in detail their final proposal to break down the tech giant’s dominance in the internet search market — where 90% of all queries go to Google — via a looming remedy trial.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta found that Google became so dominant in search — to the point it became the verb for searching things online — by making the search engine the default option on both its devices and major companies’ like Apple and Mozilla.

“Google has manipulated its control of Chrome and Android to benefit itself, while sharing monopoly profits under conditions to induce third parties across the ecosystem to help Google maintain its monopolies,” the Justice Department said in the proposal.

Google paid Apple $26.3 billion in 2021 to be the default search engine on iPhones and the Safari browser. With that status, Google was able to collect data from countless users, which boosted the search engine, bringing more users and creating a sort of snowball effect.

“Google’s exclusionary conduct has, among other things, made Google the near-universal default for search and ensured that virtually all search access points route users’ valuable queries and interaction data to Google,” the feds said.

Following a nine-week trial in 2023, Mehta ruled in August that Google monopolized internet search. The decision set up a second trial, after which the Barack Obama appointee could break up the company, issue fines or enjoin the anti-competitive conduct.

In the proposal, the Justice Department said that if Mehta decides to not break off Chrome and Android he could order “behavioral remedies” against Google and place the company under supervision, with divesture as a fallback.

The remedies would “blunt” Google’s ability to use Android to benefit its search engine, potentially in the form of a choice screen where users can decide their default search engine.

Additionally, Mehta could also create a “technical committee” to address any issues that arise from the implementation of such remedies, pointing to a similar three-member panel approved by the D.C. Circuit in *United States v. Microsoft. *

That panel was instructed to issue a report on the remedies’ status every six months and was obligated to report any instance Microsoft failed to comply with the order.

The Justice Department highlighted three necessary remedies to ensure the search market becomes competitive again and welcome Google’s long shut-out competitors, old and new: First, Mehta must end the exclusivity deals with third parties like Apple and Mozilla. Second, Google must turn over a large quantity of user data “sufficient to the level the scale-based okaying field it has illegally slanted.” And finally, Mehta must reduce Google’s control over the search ecosystem through its products like Chrome and Android.

“Only a comprehensive set of remedies can thaw the ecosystem and finally reverse years of anticompetitive effects,” the Justice Department said.

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.

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 likely lengthy trial, Google may appeal any decision to the D.C. Circuit and eventually to the Supreme Court.

Depending on the length of the appeals and whether any spots open on the high court, Donald Trump’s recent election could factor into how Google’s antitrust case concludes.

Google is scheduled to respond with its own remedy proposal by Dec. 20.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.

Follow @Ryan_Knappy