In a high-stakes antitrust case, Google has countered the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) by presenting its own proposals to address monopoly concerns without resorting to the extreme measures suggested by the DOJ, such as the sale of its Chrome browser.
The dispute stems from an August ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who found Google guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly in online search. In response, the DOJ proposed drastic remedies, including the divestment of Chrome, spinning off Google’s Android operating system, and banning exclusionary agreements with browser and phone companies.
Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, criticized the DOJ’s suggestions in a recent blog post, calling them part of an “interventionist agenda” that “goes far beyond what the Court’s decision is actually about.” She warned that these measures could harm consumers and jeopardize the United States’ global technological leadership.
“Requiring us to share people’s private search queries with competitors and restricting our ability to innovate would have significant repercussions for both user experience and national competitiveness,” Mulholland wrote.
As an alternative, Google proposed more flexible solutions:
- Search Partnerships: Google would still be allowed to enter search deals with companies like Apple and Mozilla but with provisions for customizable defaults on various platforms (e.g., iPhone vs. iPad) and different browsing modes.
- Android Flexibility: Device manufacturers could preload multiple search engines and choose to install Google apps independently of Google Search or Chrome.
Judge Mehta is expected to make a decision on remedies next year, with a hearing set for April. Meanwhile, Google is preparing to appeal the August ruling, but Mulholland emphasized that the company must first engage in discussions about suitable remedies as part of the legal process.
“We’re committed to negotiating a fair resolution that aligns with the Court’s findings while protecting innovation and consumer choice,” she stated.
