To dismantle Google's illegal monopoly over the way Americans search the Internet, the U.S. Department of Justice wants the tech giant to end its lucrative partnership with Apple, share a trove of proprietary data with competitors and advertisers, and “immediately and completely divests', Google's company. search engine that controls more than half of the US market. The government wants Google to sell Chrome to a buyer it approves, arguing that the divestiture would “pry open monopolized markets to competition, remove barriers to entry, and ensure that no practices likely to lead to unlawful monopolization remain.” ”
The recommendations are part of a detailed plan that government lawyers presented Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C. as part of a federal antitrust case against Google that began in 2020. Mehta is expected to decide in August next year which of the possible measures Google will have to take to loosen its stranglehold on the search market.
But the tech giant could still appeal, which would delay the execution of the judge's order years into the future. Google has previously argued that the expected proposals would compromise the privacy and security of its users and make its services less convenient.
Among people who have worked for Google or worked closely with the company, there is little agreement about whether any of the proposed solutions would significantly change user behavior or make the search engine market more competitive. Four former Google executives who oversaw teams working on Chrome, search and advertising told WIRED that innovation by rivals, not government intervention, remains the surest way to dethrone Google as the country's dominant Internet search engine. “You can't ram an inferior product down people's throats,” said a former Chrome executive, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect professional relationships.
But a former Chrome engineering leader acknowledged that the search engine could have been a better product if it hadn't been dependent on Google's other business interests. They claim that Google blocked the introduction of user-friendly features because they would have hurt the company's advertising revenue, which depends on clicking on ads in its search results. “Why isn't autocomplete better? Why isn't the 'new tab page' more effective? Why isn't browser history better?” said the ex-leader, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. The answer: “There are all these incentives to keep users searching.” Google did not respond to a request for comment on the claim.
Still, competitors who stand to benefit from even a small reduction in Google's power are optimistic about the expected solutions. “I see great benefits in putting [Chrome] back into the hands of the community,” said Guillermo Rauch, CEO of Vercel, a company that develops tools for websites, much of which rely on search traffic and ad revenue managed by Google. “Moderating that relationship with business leaders will always be a healthy thing,” Rauch says.
