The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued Monday that a federal judge should force Google to divest from its Chrome browser, suggesting it could send a message to other \u201cmonopolists\u201d amid the government’s multiple antitrust battles with Big Tech. <\/p>\n
The DOJ and Google offered their opening salvos in court, as they kicked off a three-week trial to determine remedies after Google was found to have an illegal monopoly over online search. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re at an inflection point,\u201d David Dahlquist, the DOJ\u2019s lead attorney, said Monday. \u201cThis is the time for the court to tell Google and all other monopolists that there are consequences when you break antitrust laws.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled last August that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly over online search through a series of exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and browser developers that secured its search engine as the default.<\/p>\n
The government has argued that splitting off the Chrome browser from Google is necessary, alongside a host of other remedies, to open up the search market and end the tech firm\u2019s monopoly. <\/p>\n
Google contends that the DOJ\u2019s proposed remedies are \u201cfundamentally flawed\u201d and \u201ccompletely untethered\u201d from the conduct at issue in the case \u2014 Google\u2019s exclusive distribution agreements. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt is a wish list from competitors looking to get the benefits of Google\u2019s extraordinary innovation,\u201d John Schmidtlein, Google\u2019s lead attorney, said Monday in his opening arguments. <\/p>\n
Beyond the Chrome divestiture, the government also seeks to bar Google from entering into the exclusive agreements at the heart of the case, as well as require the company to share search and advertising data with competitors. <\/p>\n
If these remedies fail to rein in Google\u2019s monopoly or the company circumvents them, the DOJ has included a contingency \u2014 requiring Google to split from its operating system Android. <\/p>\n
Dahlquist argued Monday that these various proposals will \u201creinforce each other to encourage competition.\u201d <\/p>\n
He slammed Google’s proposal, by contrast, as a \u201csuperficial Band-Aid approach that does nothing,\u201d dismissing its enforcement provision as \u201ctoothless.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The company\u2019s proposal seeks more limited restrictions on its agreements with device manufacturers and browsers, removing the exclusive nature of such agreements while still allowing for deals. <\/p>\n
Schmidtlein argued that Google\u2019s remedies respond directly to the court\u2019s findings in the case, while the DOJ\u2019s proposal goes well beyond them. <\/p>\n
\u201cGoogle won its place in the market fair and square,\u201d he said. \u201cDivesting Google of its hard-earned innovations so that lesser rivals can use them will not promote competition.\u201d <\/p>\n
Chrome and Android are both deeply tied to Google\u2019s infrastructure, Schmidtlein contended, which could create problems if they are divested. He also argued that the government\u2019s data sharing requirements would boost Google’s rivals, while posing privacy and security risks. <\/p>\n
Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, who leads the DOJ\u2019s antitrust division, suggested Monday that the Google case was a unifying force in an increasingly polarized political climate. <\/p>\n
\u201cIn a time of political division in our nation, this case against Google brings everyone together. This case was filed during President Trump\u2019s first term and litigated across three administrations. It has unified our nation,\u201d Slater said in a statement. <\/p>\n
She emphasized that the government has been joined by 49 states, two territories and Washington, D.C., in bringing the search case. <\/p>\n
\u201cIf Google\u2019s conduct is not remedied, it will control much of the internet for the next decade and not just in internet search, but in new technologies like artificial intelligence,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n
The trial comes at a crucial moment for Google, as its future appears increasingly uncertain in the wake of a second antitrust loss last week. <\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled Thursday that the company had illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly over advertising technology, which helps connect advertisers and publishers to fill ad space online. <\/p>\n
The decision represents another major blow for Google, although it claimed partial victory, emphasizing the parts of the case where the judge sided with the company. It has vowed to appeal the \u201cother half\u201d of the ruling. <\/p>\n
Meta is also currently on trial at the same courthouse in Washington, D.C., seeking to fend off allegations from the Federal Trade Commission that the social media giant entrenched its monopoly over social networking with its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued Monday that a federal judge should force Google to divest from its Chrome browser, suggesting it could send a message to other \u201cmonopolists\u201d amid<\/p>\n