Google fights back on DOJ antitrust remedies: What is the monopoly lawsuit?

The US Department of Justice recommended various steps including the sale of web browse Chrome to settle antitrust case against Google: Lawsuit explained

In response to the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) sweeping antitrust proposals, Google has offered a counterproposal to avoid drastic changes to its business operations, including the sale of its Chrome browser. The tech giant instead suggested a narrower remedy: A three-year ban on exclusive deals with companies like Apple, compared to the DOJ’s recommended ten years, The Verge reported on Tuesday.

 

What is DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit against Google?

The US Department of Justice began investigating Google’s dominance in the internet search market in 2019, raising concerns that the company’s business practices were anti-competitive before filing its suit in October 2020. In its filing, the justice department accused the tech giant of unlawfully maintaining its monopoly in the search engine market by using exclusive contracts to suppress competition.

 

 

Over 30 state attorneys general joined the DOJ in the lawsuit, amplifying the case’s significance.

 

The DOJ and state attorneys general argued that Google had secured contracts with major tech companies (like Apple and Android) to make its search engine the default on devices and browsers, preventing competitors such as Bing and DuckDuckGo from gaining market share.

 

This strategy was said to create a ‘feedback loop’, where Google’s dominance in search boosted its digital ad revenues, allowing it to further cement its market power.

 

During court proceedings in 2021, Google argued that its dominance was due to consumer choice and that its practices benefited users.

 

Google antitrust suit ruling

In late 2023, US District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled in favour of the DOJ, agreeing that Google had unlawfully monopolised the search market. The judge concluded that Google’s contracts with major companies violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits anti-competitive practices.

 

The ruling highlighted that Google controlled 89.2 per cent of the search market and 94.9 per cent of the mobile search market, and its actions harmed competitors.

 

Following the ruling, Google announced its intention to appeal the decision. The company argued that the ruling could limit consumer choice, as users might not be able to easily access Google’s search engine, which they consider their preferred option.

 

In August 5, 2024, however the judge found Google violated US antitrust law, stating that “Google has no true competitor”.

 

Although the court found Google guilty of monopolistic practices, penalties, remedies, or restrictions are still to be decided

 

DOJ recommendations

The DOJ, after securing a win in an antitrust trial, proposed remedies aimed at dismantling Google’s alleged monopoly in the online search market. The DOJ’s demands included:

1. Selling its Chrome browser
2. Syndicating its search results to rivals
3. Ending exclusive agreements that make Google the default search engine on Apple’s Safari
4. A potential divestiture of Android to curb its influence

 

Google’s response to lawsuite

Speaking about the lawsuit, Kent Walker, president of global affairs & chief legal officer, Google & Alphabet, said the DOJ’s “extreme proposal would endanger the security and privacy of millions of Americans, and undermine the quality of products people love, by forcing the sale of Chrome and potentially Android.” It would require disclosure to unknown foreign and domestic companies of not just Google’s innovations and results, but even more troublingly, Americans’ personal search queries, Walker said.

 

Google’s counterproposal

Google has argued that the DOJ’s demands are “wildly overbroad”, risking harm to innovation in a fast-changing industry. In response the global tach giant has proposed the following:

 

Ending exclusive default deals: Google suggested it would stop entering exclusive agreements that make it the default search engine on platforms such as Apple’s Siri or Spotlight. However, this would only last for three years. 

Increased flexibility for rivals: It proposed giving browser companies, such as Mozilla, more freedom to set rival search engines as defaults. 

Limiting ties between apps: Google would stop requiring manufacturers to pre-install its Gemini Assistant app as a condition to access other Google services. 

Google’s proposal also promises to let Apple annually select and promote alternative default search engines. This aims to address the trial’s core concerns while avoiding broader penalties that could force it to share proprietary search signals with competitors or divest critical assets like Chrome or Android.

 

‘Google’s proposal does not address antitrust concerns’

Google’s rival DuckDuckGo criticised the proposal, claiming it maintains the status quo and minimises the impact on Google’s dominant position. DuckDuckGo spokesperson Kamyl Bazbaz told The Verge that the proposal did little to address the core antitrust concerns.

 

What’s next for Google?

Both Google’s and the DOJ’s proposals serve as starting points for the federal court’s deliberations. A hearing is scheduled for April 22, 2025 in Washington, DC.