Google considers the changes proposed by the Department of Justice as “radical”
The United States Government has revealed that it is even considering the possibility of requiring the break-up of Google as one of the measures to prevent the multinational from exercising a monopoly position, after a federal court ruled last August that the company violated US antitrust laws after finding that it controls approximately 90% of the Internet search market.
In a 32-page document registered with the court that is handling the case, the Department of Justice, as the plaintiff, proposes taking into consideration different solutions to address issues such as the distribution of search and the distribution of Google’s revenue, the generation and display of search results, advertising scale and monetization, and the accumulation and use of data.
In this regard, it points out that, for each area, the remedies necessary to prevent and stop the maintenance of the company’s monopoly could require contractual requirements and prohibitions; product nondiscrimination requirements; data and interoperability requirements; and “structural requirements.”
Among the array of proposed measures, the plaintiffs are considering “behavioral and structural” remedies that would prevent Google from using products like Chrome, Play, and Android to favor Google Search and related products and features, including access points and emerging search features, such as AI, over rivals or new entrants.”
They are also proposing remedies that would limit or end Google’s use of contracts, monopoly profits, and other tools to control or influence established and emerging search-related products and distribution channels, including browsers, search apps, and AI.
As such, the plaintiffs are considering remedies that would, among other things, limit or prohibit default agreements, pre-installation agreements, and other revenue-sharing agreements related to search and search-related products.
“For more than a decade, Google has controlled the most popular distribution channels, leaving rivals with little or no incentive to compete for users,” the Justice Department said, adding that to fully remedy this damage, it is necessary not only to end Google’s control of distribution today, “but also to ensure that Google cannot control distribution tomorrow.”
Google, for its part, has responded by describing the changes proposed by the Justice Department as “radical,” warning that they risk harming consumers, businesses, and developers.
In this regard, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of Regulatory Affairs, has stressed that this is the beginning of a long process and has assured that the company will respond in detail to the Justice Department’s final proposals when it presents its case to the court next year.
“However, we are concerned that the Justice Department is already pointing out requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues of this case,” she added.
In particular, the Mountain View company warns that “separating Chrome or Android would destroy them,” after having invested billions of dollars in both, adding that few companies would have the capacity or incentive to keep these services open source or to invest in them at the same level as Google.
“Make no mistake: separating them would change their business models, increase the cost of devices and weaken Android and Google Play in their strong competition with the iPhone and Apple’s App Store,” Mulholland argued.
