US regulators want federal judges to eliminate Google to prevent the company from continuing to squash competition through the dominant search engine after the court found it had maintained an abusive monopoly over the past decade.
The proposed split is contained in a 23-page document filed last Wednesday by the US Department of Justice asking Google to sell its industry-leading Chrome web browser and impose restrictions designed to prevent Android smartphone software from opting out of search engines.
The recommended punishment underscores how harshly regulators operating under President Biden believe Google should be punished after an August ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that branded Google as a monopoly. Justice Department decision makers who will inherit the case after President-elect Donald Trump takes office next year may not be as strident. The Washington, DC court hearing on the Google penalty is scheduled to begin in April and Mehta aims to issue a final decision before Labor Day.
If Mehta follows the Justice Department’s recommendation, Google will almost certainly appeal the sentence, prolonging a legal battle that has dragged on for more than four years.
In addition to seeking Chrome spin-offs and linking Android software, the Justice Department wants a judge to bar Google from making a multibillion-dollar bid to lock the dominant search engine as the default option on Apple’s iPhones and other devices.
Regulators also want Google to share data it collects from people’s queries with rivals, giving it a better chance to compete with the tech giant.
The measures, if enacted, threaten to upend a business expected to generate more than $300 billion this year — a money-making engine that gives Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc.
“The playing field has not been leveled by Google’s actions, and Google’s quality represents an advantage that cannot be obtained illegally,” the Justice Department said in its recommendation. “The drug should close the loophole and reduce Google’s advantage.”
It’s possible the Justice Department could drop its efforts to crack down on Google, especially if Trump takes the steps he wants to replace Jonathan Kanter, whom Biden appointed to oversee the agency’s antitrust division.
Although the case targeting Google was originally filed during Trump’s final months in office, Kanter oversaw the high-profile trial that ultimately resulted in Mehta’s verdict against Google. Working alongside Federal Trade Commission Chairman Lina Khan, Kanter has taken a tough stance against Big Tech that has led to other hard-hitting efforts in industries such as Apple and not advising businesses to end the past four years.
Trump recently expressed concern that a breakup could hurt Google but did not elaborate on alternative punishments he might consider. “What you can do without removing it is make sure it’s fairer,” Trump said last month. Matt Gaetz, the former Republican congressman whom Trump has nominated to be the next US Attorney General, has previously called for Big Tech companies to break up.
Gaetz, a firebrand for Trump, faces tough confirmation hearings.
This latest filing gives Kanter and his team one last chance to define the steps they believe are needed to restore competition in search. Six weeks after the Justice first floated the idea of ​​parting ways in its opening lines on potential penalties.
But Kanter’s proposal has raised the question of whether the regulator seeks to impose controls that go beyond the issues covered in last year’s trial, and – by extension – Mehta’s decision.
Banning the default search offering that Google now pays more than $26 billion a year to maintain was one of the main practices that troubled Mehta in his decision.
It is less clear whether the judge will accept the Justice Department’s claim that Chrome should be spun out of Google and Android should be unbundled from other companies’ services.
Attempts to break up Google harks back to the punishment they first imposed on Microsoft a quarter of a century ago after another major antitrust trial that culminated in a federal judge deciding that the software manufacturer has illegally used the Windows operating system for PCs to stifle competition.
However, the appeals court overturned the order that would have removed Microsoft, a precedent that many experts believe will make Mehta reluctant to go down the same path as the Google case.
