On Wednesday, the U.S. government escalated its antitrust case against Google by formally suggesting a partial dissolution of the tech giant. The authorities are advocating for a federal court to order the sale of Google's Chrome web browser, following a landmark decision this year that ruled Google's search business violated U.S. antitrust laws. This move by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and several states could lead to the most substantial antitrust penalties imposed on a tech company in decades, challenging Google's dominance in search and its foray into artificial intelligence. If the court sanctions these penalties, it could transform the way millions of Americans access information and potentially disrupt the seamless integration of Google's key products and services. Google has indicated it will appeal the decision.

The high-profile lawsuit scrutinized whether Google's methods of securing its position as the default search engine in Chrome and on various devices like iPhones and Android contravened competition laws, excluding smaller search engines from the market. In their recent court filing, antitrust regulators argued that divesting Chrome, which is utilized on billions of devices globally, could prevent a recurrence of illegal monopolistic practices. "The playing field is not level due to Google's actions, and Google's success is built on the unjust gains of an illegally obtained advantage," stated government attorneys. "The remedy must close this gap and strip Google of these advantages." They also proposed that the court should prohibit agreements like Google's exclusive, multi-year contracts with companies such as Apple and Samsung, which have made Google the default search engine on their devices. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August that such agreements reinforced Google's dominance in violation of federal law.

In their filing, officials also suggested that Google should be compelled to share its U.S. search results with rival search engines for the next ten years, potentially leveling the playing field. DOJ attorneys proposed a range of additional restrictions aimed at preventing future harm. One such measure would require Google to allow websites the option to opt-out of having their data used to train the company's AI tools. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, testifying in the case last year, warned of a "nightmare" scenario for AI if Google were allowed to convert the billions of daily search queries into training data for its AI models. Microsoft, which has struggled to compete with Google's search engine, Bing, and is a leading competitor in AI through an exclusive partnership with OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, has a vested interest in this outcome.

In a blog post, Google's President and Chief Legal Officer, Kent Walker, labeled the government's proposal as "extreme" and claimed it would compromise Americans' security and privacy by forcing Google to share user data with other entities. "The DOJ has chosen to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America's global technology leadership," Walker stated. "The DOJ's wildly overbroad proposal goes far beyond the Court's decision. It would fragment a variety of Google products—not just Search—that people love and find helpful in their daily lives." Walker also mentioned that Google plans to present its own proposal to the court in December and will make its broader case next year.

The DOJ's Google Search case, initiated in 2020 under the Trump administration and continued under President Biden, alleged that Google employed multiple interconnected tactics and products to exclude competitors in search, such as Bing and DuckDuckGo, leaving consumers with limited choices and a less innovative search engine market. Over the course of a multi-week trial, which included sensitive testimony from executives of Apple, Microsoft, Verizon, and others behind closed doors, Judge Mehta assessed whether Google's practices had stifled competition in search. He ultimately concluded that Google had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a key U.S. antitrust law. "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," Mehta wrote in his opinion.

The DOJ's submission offers a comprehensive list of penalties that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia could impose following Mehta's ruling. This filing initiates a multi-month fact-finding process that is expected to culminate in a hearing in April, with a final decision anticipated later in 2025. The DOJ's requests are poised to disrupt a fundamental aspect of the internet and Google's most established and well-known business. In addition to the potential Chrome divestiture, the DOJ and state officials also called for separating Google Search from Google's Android mobile operating system and the Google Play app store, though not necessarily through a breakup or spinoff.

Many of the proposals outlined in Wednesday's filing were initially previewed in an earlier court submission in October. The proposed remedies for Google aim to resolve the largest antitrust lawsuit to hit the tech industry since the U.S. government's prosecution of Microsoft in the 1990s—a case widely regarded as paving the way for Google's rise. At the time, U.S. antitrust officials accused Microsoft of illegally bundling its Internet Explorer browser with the Windows PC operating system, a move that allegedly stifled competition by preventing rival browsers such as Netscape Navigator from gaining user traction. A settlement with the DOJ in 2001 required Microsoft to share its programming interfaces with other software developers, effectively opening up its platform and providing other browser makers with an opportunity to succeed. The Microsoft case is credited with enabling the rise of Mozilla's Firefox and Google's Chrome browsers, which ultimately allowed Google to promote its search engine to billions of internet users.

The parallels between the Microsoft and Google cases are evident, as Judge Mehta wrote in his August opinion. "The end result here is not dissimilar from the Microsoft court's conclusion regarding the browser market," Mehta said. "Just as the agreements in that case 'helped keep usage of Navigator below the critical level necessary for Navigator or any other rival to pose a real threat to Microsoft's monopoly,' Google's distribution agreements have constrained the query volumes of its rivals, thereby protecting Google from any genuine competitive threat." Mehta's decision came shortly after a federal jury in California determined that Google's app store terms violated U.S. antitrust law and that Google had run an illegal monopoly in Android app distribution. Last month, the judge overseeing that case imposed a three-year injunction preventing Google from engaging in certain practices, such as using terms that force app developers to use Google's proprietary payment system for in-app billing. Google has appealed both the jury verdict and the injunction.

Even as Google contests the DOJ's remedies in the search case, the company is also engaged in another antitrust battle in Alexandria, Virginia, across the Potomac River. There, the DOJ is prosecuting Google in federal court over allegations that the tech giant has illegally monopolized the market for digital advertising technology—the complex ecosystem of businesses that determines which ads appear on countless websites across the internet. That case, filed in 2023, went to trial this fall, with closing arguments expected to take place on Monday.