The DOJ Is Considering Asking Judge to Break Up Google A proposal to limit or ban contracts that make Google the default search engine could also affect partners like Apple, which makes billions from Google.
Key Takeaways
- Prosecutors proposed remedies after Google antitrust violation ruling by a federal judge.
- Judge Amit Mehta previously ruled Google violated antitrust laws by securing default search deals.
- The case likely has years of legal battles ahead.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider.
Months after a federal judge ruled that Google violated antitrust law with its search engine, prosecutors have recommended remedies that a judge could order the tech giant to implement.
If enacted, the "behavioral and structural remedies" prosecutors are seeking could force a major reorganization or even a breakup of some of Google's basic businesses, including its search engine, which is so popular it became a verb.
A breakup — if it survived inevitable legal battles — would also mark a major escalation in the agency's years-long antitrust fights against Big Tech, which have ensnared almost every major tech company.
A proposal to limit or ban contracts that make Google the default search engine could affect not just Google itself, but also partners like Apple, which makes billions from Google.
Prosecutors said they're considering a requirement that Google share the data that powers a big chunk of its business — the inputs and models for Google search and search results — through an application programming interface. It's unclear how such an API would work, including if Google could charge for it or open it to the public, a possible fix that investors floated in recent months.
Another proposal would prevent the company from using its other products, such as Chrome and Android, to promote Google search over competitors.
Prosecutors said they may require Google to allow websites to opt out of having their content used to train or appear in Google's AI results, as well as imposing restrictions on ads in search. Companies and consumers are increasingly concerned about how their data is being used to train AI models.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a public statement that the case was one of "government overreach." She said the proposed remedies could raise the cost of devices and undermine Google Play's competition with Apple's App store.
"The government seems to be pursuing a sweeping agenda that will impact numerous industries and products," Mulholland wrote.
A company representative declined further comment.
Judge: 'Google is a monopolist'
None of these proposals are final. Prosecutors will give the court a proposed final judgement next month and a revision of that judgement in March.
District Judge Amit Mehta will decide whether to enforce the changes proposed by prosecutors — any orders doled out would be intended to restore competition in the online search market. Google previously said that the company plans to appeal the ruling, which could delay the judge from imposing any remedies filed by the prosecution.
In August, Mehta ruled that Alphabet, Google's parent company, violated antitrust laws by inking deals that made Google the default search engine on other platforms.
"Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," Mehta wrote in his nearly 300-page ruling.
The ruling — and prosecutors' remedies — should serve as a cautionary tale for Big Tech. The antitrust case against Google sparked the biggest monopoly ruling since Microsoft faced the potential of a breakup in the 1990s.
Dan Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, previously told BI that Google's unsuccessful tangle with the Department of Justice is only fueling the DOJ's "Big Tech battle."
