Now that Google is a monopolist, government lawyers are laying out their plans to deal with the search giant.
Share this story
Now that Judge Amit Mehta has found Google is a monopolist, lawyers for the Department of Justice have begun proposing solutions to correct the company’s illegal behavior and restore competition to the market for search engines. In a new 32-page filing (included below), they said they are considering both “behavioral and structural remedies.“
That covers everything from applying a consent decree to keep an eye on the company’s behavior to forcing it to sell off parts of its business, such as Chrome, Android, or Google Play.
Similarly, Plaintiffs are considering behavioral 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.
But the first problem cited in the filing is Google’s control of search distribution, and the amount of money it pays to be the default option on platforms like Apple’s iPhone. The DOJ lawyers write that “rivals cannot compete for these distribution channels because Google’s monopoly-funded revenue share payments disincentivize its partners from diverting queries to Google’s rivals.”
Other fixes the DOJ is considering include things that affect user behavior, like requiring “Google to provide support for educational-awareness campaigns that would enhance the ability of users to choose the general search engine that suits them best.”
In a response on its blog late Tuesday, Google claimed the proposed framework “goes well beyond the legal scope of the Court’s decision about Search distribution contracts,” and that “[s]plitting off Chrome or Android would break them.” Google claims that billions of people get online thanks to Chrome and Android existing as free products, and that “[f]ew companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do.”
