The U.S. government has confirmed it is considering asking a judge to force Google to sell part of its business as part of potential relief in an antitrust lawsuit over control of online search.
Under the proposed redress framework [PDF] In a filing yesterday, the Justice Department’s antitrust division laid out various ways to address Google’s so-called anticompetitive conduct in its general search service and general search text ads. The move follows federal judge Amit Mehta’s ruling in August that found the company had monopolies in areas such as cell phone search and had acted to maintain that monopoly.
Yesterday’s filing states that the government will “prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to gain an advantage over Google Search and Google Search-related products and features over rivals and new entrants. It states that it is considering “behavioral and structural remedies.”
“Structural rescue” in these cases typically refers to breaking up the company into smaller businesses or selling certain assets. In this particular case, that could mean Google’s Chrome browser or the Android mobile operating system.
Google today called the move a “government overreach” and a “radical and sweeping proposal” that would harm developers and consumers. register To that statement. It added: “We believe today’s blueprint goes far beyond the legal scope of the court’s ruling on search distribution agreements. “This could have unintended negative consequences for consumers. We look forward to developing our plans.” Argument in court. ”
If the watchdog moves forward with these remedies and the courts approve them, it would be the biggest antitrust violation by a U.S. company since 2016. US vs. AT&T AT&T Corp. was forced to agree to split its U.S. operations into seven smaller units called “Baby Bells.” The sale took two years and was completed in 1984.
However, those are big assumptions. When it comes to the likelihood that the company will proceed with the sale and that the court will agree, many will point to the following evidence: US vs. Microsoft.
“As the court found, Google’s longstanding control over the Chrome browser, which comes with the default Google search preinstalled, has significantly narrowed the available distribution channels and prevented the emergence of new competition.” The department’s filing goes on to state that “the Google Play Store is required for all Android devices,” and that the Android Agreement “is an important tool against Google’s anti-competitive restrictions on distribution.” I am.
The Justice Department goes on to say that it is obligated to seek orders that not only address the harm that already exists as a result of Google’s misconduct, but also prevent and restrain the misconduct from occurring again, and that courts have the authority to impose such orders. There is,” he claimed. This will continue to be a crime similar to the crime of maintaining an illegal monopoly. ” This may be interpreted to imply that structural remedies are needed, as behavioral remedies are often seen as less effective and more difficult to enforce.
The Department of Justice said it is considering remedies that address four categories of harm related to Google’s conduct, consisting of search distribution and revenue sharing, within the proposed relief framework. Generating and displaying search results. Ad scale and monetization. Accumulation and utilization of data.
In each field, the remedies deemed necessary to prevent monopolistic behavior are said to include contractual requirements and prohibitions. Non-discriminatory product requirements. Data and interoperability requirements. and their structural requirements.
search and rescue
The document says the starting point in addressing the search giant’s misconduct is to undo its impact on search distribution, noting that most devices in the U.S. come with Google Search pre-installed. are.
The document points out with a sense of crisis that in order to completely rectify these harms, it is necessary to “not only end Google’s distribution control today, but also ensure that Google will no longer be able to control tomorrow’s distribution.” There is.
The Department of Justice will restrict or prohibit search and search-related product pre-installation agreements and revenue-sharing agreements, restricting companies from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage their Google search and searches. It is said that they are considering remedies to prevent this. Related products and features.
Regarding data storage and use, the Justice Department alleges that Google’s “illegal conduct” enabled it to store and use data at the expense of rivals. The company plans to take advantage of this benefit in some ways by requiring the company to make “the indexes, data, feeds, and models used for Google Search” and “make Google Search results, features, and advertising available to others.” “We are considering remedies to invalidate it in a formal manner.” Underlying ranking signals, especially on mobile. ”
The concern with search result generation and display is that search results are “produced by third parties who have little or no bargaining power over Google’s monopoly and cannot risk retaliation or exclusion from Google.” This means that they often rely on “websites and other content” that have been published. says the document.
To address this, the government is leveling the playing field by requiring the Mountain View company to allow websites crawled for Google search to opt out of training and displaying Google-owned AI products and features. He said he is considering doing so.
Finally, regarding ad scale and monetization, the Justice Department says that Google’s monopoly not only “undermines advertisers’ choice of search providers,” but also undermines rivals’ ability to monetize search ads.
The Justice Department also said it would require remedies involving the licensing and syndication of Google’s ad feeds independent of Google’s search results, as well as transparent details for Google’s search advertisers about the auctioning of search text ads and the monetization of their ads. He said he is also considering remedies that would allow them to receive more information.
As a measure of how seriously antitrust watchdogs take enforcement of the remedies, the court will provide Chocolate Factory with funding for a court-appointed technical committee to monitor compliance and administer the remedies. He said he is considering asking the judge to require him to do so. It is also considering appointing a senior Google executive to appear in court regularly to report on the company’s compliance status.
The government plans to submit a more refined final judgment proposal to the court in November 2024, and a revised final judgment proposal is expected to be submitted in March 2025.
