DOJ Solidifies Stance on Breaking Up Google, Insisting on Chrome’s Sale Despite Google’s Resistance

Google’s ongoing legal struggles have been a hot topic for some time, with many observers initially speculating that the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) might alter its approach. However, it seems unlikely that a different outcome will materialize. The DOJ has been pursuing a divestiture due to alleged violations of antitrust laws by the tech titan, while Google has consistently defended its practices.

US DOJ Sticks to Its Guns in Pursuit of Breaking Up Google

In the face of vigorous regulatory scrutiny, Google is at a critical juncture that could redefine its operational landscape. Accusations of monopolistic behavior have led to findings that the company maintains an unfair hold over the search engine market, adversely affecting competitors. As a remedy, Judge Amit Mehta has proposed that Google might be compelled to sell its Chrome browser to mitigate its monopolistic grip.

Google has vehemently contested this suggestion, asserting that such drastic measures exceed legal requirements and could potentially harm consumers and the broader economy. In response, the company has put forth its own proposal, urging the DOJ to reconsider the push for selling Chrome. Google’s argument hinges on national security concerns, stressing that regulatory changes should focus on imposing certain restrictions rather than dismantling core services.

While some believed that the DOJ might soften its stance amid Google’s advocacy, a recent filing indicates a resolute stance from the government. The revised proposal emphasizes the necessity for significant structural changes within Google, emphasizing that the company’s dominance in online search services is illegal. Notably, the DOJ’s latest push includes measures for Google to divest not only Chrome but potentially the Android operating system as well.

Under the DOJ’s proposed remedies, restrictions would be imposed on Google regarding agreements that establish its search engine as the default option across various platforms and devices. Moreover, Google would be obligated to inform regulatory authorities prior to embarking on new projects or partnerships. However, it is worth mentioning that the anticipated divestiture of investments in artificial intelligence does not feature prominently in the current proposals as initially indicated by the plaintiffs.

Upcoming hearings related to this proposal are set for April 2025, with a potential breakup of Google planned for August 2025. This case represents a pivotal moment in legal precedent, marking one of the most assertive antitrust pursuits in recent history, with significant implications for the technology sector at large.

Source & Images