Will Google be Forced to Divest Android and Chrome?

Dan Meier 21 October, 2024 

Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) floated a series of potential remedies to unwind Google’s search monopoly, which was deemed in August to have been obtained by illegal practices, including paying billions of dollars to make Google the default search engine on most browsers and devices.

Possible actions included breaking up Google’s business by forcing the divestment of Android and Chrome; opening up Google’s search engine data to third parties; and forcing Google to allow websites to opt out of being crawled for AI-generated search results.

Google called the proposals “radical and sweeping”, arguing that the reforms would harm consumer privacy, businesses and competition. The tech giant faces ongoing antitrust proceedings into other parts of its business (including ad tech) both in the US and EU.

VideoWeek asked four antitrust experts what they consider the most likely outcomes in the search case.

Jeffrey S. Oliver, Partner, Baker Botts

This is an administration that likes to take a big regulatory swing, at least in antitrust. So it shouldn’t be surprising if the DOJ seeks a divestment of some kind. I would be surprised, however, if such a swing connected in court, where there does not appear to be the same level of animus that the DOJ clearly feels toward Google’s behaviour. Also, courts have generally preferred a narrow, more tailored approach to remedies. Divestiture is a bit of a nuclear option that does not feel entirely justified here.

James Rosewell, Co-Founder, Movement for an Open Web

Google’s claim in response to the DOJ’s proposed monopoly remedies that there is a risk to consumer privacy is yet another predictable and flawed attempt to use the veil of privacy to maintain its dominant position. The DOJ’s position is that Google’s data must be shared with other organisations and that – if the data practices are so toxic and invasive that this is not possible lawfully – then Google should be prevented from working in this way as well. In this way the DOJ has anticipated Google’s claim that it protects users’ privacy and that only Google can be trusted – a claim that is unlikely to be compelling anyway given Google’s long history of privacy invasion.

The DoJ have been forward-looking in calling out Google’s attempts to bake in its AI dominance. We’re already seeing a significant, negative impact on publishers from the theft of their content for use in AI results. The option to opt out of AI harvesting without retaliation is vital to protecting the content economy. The fact that the framework specifically calls out retaliation by Google against its competitors graphically demonstrates what we’ve been saying for years. Google is the “playground bully”, throwing its weight around to maintain its dominance in the marketplace. Until their retaliatory behaviour is curbed then markets will not have the confidence to engage on effective remedies.

Tim Cowen, Chair of Antitrust Practice, Preiskel & Co.

The law requires the harm to be stopped and competition to be restored. The DOJ’s framework highlights four ‘D’s: Distribution, Display, Data and Dominance. Taking each in turn: Google has monopolised distribution of search through revenue share and default agreements with Apple, telcos and OEMs. They pay competitors over $26 billion to stay out of the search market. They have to stop.

Competition in search then can be created if access is provided to Google’s search engine, data and data feeds. If third parties can use the data feeds that Google uses then competitive search businesses can be created and dominance addressed. That should lead to better search results, and lower prices for search ads. A non-discriminatory, royalty-free worldwide technology licence can only be  policed through transparency and monitoring of separate search and browser businesses; Google’s would need to be restructured but not necessarily sold.

Jason Kint, CEO, Digital Content Next

Google faces antitrust enforcement across both coasts, Texas, and DC, with a focus on its monopoly in search and related text ads. The main objective is to end harmful practices and prevent further abuse, which may include ordering Google to divest Android and Chrome. This would address the core of Google’s monopoly – its query and data scale – without resorting to prolonged behavioral remedies.

However, the real question is whether the court and the DOJ will fully strip Google of the benefits gained through illegal practices, as US v. Microsoft dictates [the 2001 antitrust ruling that imposed restrictions to prevent monopolisation in Big Tech]. It’s clear these benefits include YouTube, where Google’s dominance in search and the associated data provided an unfair advantage in discovery and monetisation of video.

Follow VideoWeek on Twitter and LinkedIn.

2024-10-21T11:15:05+01:00

About the Author:

Reporter at VideoWeek.
Go to Top