Google is in a bit of pickle with the US Department of Justice now suggesting that the search and advertisement giant split off two of its most profitable businesses as remedies to antitrust charges.
Google was recently found guilty of anticompetitive behavior by the DOJ in regard to practices the company took when dealing with competitors in the search market. As a result of the win the DOJ scored against Google, the Justice Department is looking to have the company share the treasure trove of search data it collected over the years with competition search competitors as well reigning in the exclusive distribution contracts Google held with partners like Apple and Firefox.
In a further attempt to level the playing field, the DOJ is also looking to regulate how Google goes about positioning itself in the future to prevent the company from new attempts at blocking competition in the “evolving search industry.”
An effective remedy requires administration as well as protections against circumvention and retaliation, including through novel paths to preserving dominance in the monopolized markets. This is especially true in dynamic industries like the markets at issue here. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are considering additional remedies aimed to achieve these goals. These remedies could, among other things, require Google to (1) finance and report to a Court-appointed technical committee that helps administer the remedies in this action, including by monitoring any circumventive or retaliatory behavior; (2) designate a senior Google executive to be made regularly available to the Court to report on Google’s compliance with the remedies in this action; (3) continue to retain relevant documents (including chat messages) and submit to inspection as requested by the Court, the technical committee, or the Plaintiffs; (4) train employees routinely on compliance with the remedies in this action; (5) prohibit Google from owning or otherwise holding a stake in the success of its search competitors; and (6) refrain from
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
retaliating against a rival or anyone who cooperates with a rival or with the implementation, monitoring, or enforcement of the remedies in this action. I
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
However, it’s the DOJ’s proposed divestment of Android and Chrome from Google proper that’s raised the temperature for the company.
Predictably, Google was incensed by the DOJ’s preliminary remedies suggestions with the company’s vp of regulatory affairs saying, “We believe that today’s blueprint goes well beyond the legal scope of the Court’s decision about Search distribution contracts.”
Google vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mullholland further clarifies,
Government overreach in a fast-moving industry may have negative unintended consequences for American innovation and America’s consumers. We look forward to making our arguments in court.
Lee-Anne Mulholland
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
In addition to Mulholland’s rhetorical push back, Google will also be legally pushing back over the next month to keep the scope of proposed remedies much narrower than what the DOJ has just proposed. Both the DOJ and Google will need to have their agreed upon settlement earmarked for March 2025 when this legal process moves into its enforcement phase.
The March 2025 deadline for approved remedies to be agreed upon is also a suggested date as reality will include an appeals process that could drag on for years and eventually result in a far less publicized ending where Google keeps both Android and Chrome while paying fines for revenues.
Like Google, the DOJ will not be sitting on its hands as it plans to talk to industry experts, investors and stakeholders about additional solutions that could help dismantle the illegal search marketing lead Google currently cultivated for itself.
Indeed, the Court has broad power to fashion a remedy that “prevent[s] future violations
United States District Court of Columbia
and eradicate[s] existing evils.” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 101 (D.C. Cir.
2001) (quoting United States v. Ward Baking Co., 376 U.S. 327, 330–31 (1964)). Any remedy
requires a “comprehensive” “unitary framework” to restore competition and prevent future
monopolization with provisions “intended to complement and reinforce each other.” See New
York v. Microsoft Corp., 531 F. Supp. 2d 141, 170 (D.D.C. 2008)
Similar to Microsoft a couple of decades prior, Google stands at juncture where its key business proposition is changing, and the DOJ is stepping in to help competition navigate a new evolution of services. While Google has successfully monopolized internet search with its algorithm and browser, the dawn of AI is being born of the ashes of traditional search box experiences and the DOJ seems determined to hinder Google’s ability to transfer that illegally seized power to another computing paradigm.
