The US government may ask a judge to force the breakup of Google’s business as it attempts to challenge the tech corporation’s monopoly over the internet search market.
The Department of Justice has filed court papers that say it is considering enforcing “structural remedies” that would prevent Google from using some of its products such as Chrome, Android and Play, which the DoJ argues give the company an advantage over rivals.
Other actions being considered include blocking Google from paying to have its search engine pre-installed on smartphones and other devices.
Google, which is owned by Alphabet, said it would challenge any case by the DoJ and that the proposals marked an “overreach” by the government that would harm consumers.
The latest filing comes after a court ruling in August in favour of the DoJ that found Google, which controls 90% of the global search market, had violated antitrust laws and spent billions building up an illegal monopoly. The ruling paved the way for the current lawsuit by the justice department that will rule on potential actions to counteract Google’s market domination.
The filing said Google’s conduct had resulted in “interlocking and pernicious harms” to users, and the importance of restoring competition to a market, which was “indispensable” to Americans, could not be overstated.
The judgment said: “Plaintiffs are considering behavioural and structural remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features – including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence –over rivals or new entrants.”
The move may also prevent Google from being able to pay major phone companies such as Apple and Samsung for Chrome to be the default browser on their devices. In 2021, Google paid companies $26.3bn to ensure its search engine was the default option in the products.
The filing said: “For more than a decade, Google has controlled the most popular distribution channels, leaving rivals with little to no incentive to compete for users. Fully remedying these harms requires not only ending Google’s control of distribution today, but also ensuring Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow.”
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice-president for regulatory affairs, said the DoJ’s “radical and sweeping” proposals risked hurting consumers, businesses and developers.
She said: “This case is about a set of search distribution contracts. Rather than focus on that, the government seems to be pursuing a sweeping agenda that will impact numerous industries and products, with significant unintended consequences for consumers, businesses and American competitiveness.”
Ben Barringer, a technology analyst at Quilter Cheviot, said that while the filing was a “shot across the bow” of Google, he was sceptical about the immediate impact the move would have on the company and said it would be a “drawn-out process” with lots of negotiation.
He said: “It has cast the net fairly wide in its list of potential remedies but for now the detail remains incredibly shallow.
“The share price was unmoved on the news, as the proposed range of remedies was in line with fears.”
The case has echoes of the US government’s attempt to break up the fellow tech company Microsoft in the 1990s in an effort to challenge its dominance over the nascent software market.
In 2000, a judge ruled in favour of the DoJ and said the company would have to be split in two but this was successfully appealed against by Microsoft a year later and the justice department eventually dropped its case.
The DoJ is expected to submit a more detailed set of proposals by 20 November, with Google to submit its proposed remedies by 20 December.
