Alphabet’s Google must sell its Chrome browser, share data and search results with rivals and take other measures – including possibly selling Android – to end its monopoly on online search, prosecutors argued to a judge on Wednesday.
The measures presented by the Department of Justice are part of a landmark case in Washington which has the potential to reshape how users find information.
They would be in place for up to a decade, enforced via a court-appointed committee to remedy what the judge overseeing the case deemed an illegal monopoly in search and related advertising in the U.S., where Google processes 90% of searches.
“Google’s unlawful behavior has deprived rivals not only of critical distribution channels but also distribution partners who could otherwise enable entry into these markets by competitors in new and innovative ways,” the DOJ and state antitrust enforcers said in a court filing on Wednesday.
Their proposals include ending exclusive agreements in which Google pays billions of dollars annually to Apple and other device vendors to make its search engine the default on their tablets and smartphones.
Google called the proposals staggering in a statement on Thursday.
“DOJ’s approach would result in unprecedented government overreach that would harm American consumers, developers, and small businesses – and jeopardize America’s global economic and technological leadership at precisely the moment it’s needed most,” said Alphabet Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker.
Alphabet shares closed nearly 5% lower on Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has scheduled a trial on the proposals for April, though President-elect Donald Trump and the DOJ’s next antitrust head could step in and change course in the case.
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
The proposals are wide-ranging, including barring Google from re-entering the browser market for five years and insisting Google sell its Android mobile operating system if other remedies fail to restore competition. The DOJ has also requested a prohibition on Google buying or investing in search rivals, query-based artificial intelligence products or advertising technology.
Publishers and websites would also be given a way to opt out of being included in training Google’s AI products.
A five-person technical committee appointed by the judge would enforce compliance under prosecutors’ proposals. The committee, which Google would pay for, would have the power to demand documents, interview employees and delve into software code, the filing showed.
The measures together are meant to break “a perpetual feedback loop that further entrenches Google” through additional users, data and advertising dollars, prosecutors said.
CHROME AND ANDROID
Chrome is the world’s most widely used web browser and is a pillar of Google’s business, providing user information that helps the company target ads more effectively and profitably.
Google has used Chrome and Android to preference its own search engine to the detriment of rivals, prosecutors said.
Google has said making it divest Chrome and Android, which are built on open source code and are free, would harm companies that have built upon them to develop their own products.
The proposals would bar Google from requiring devices that run on Android to include its search or AI products.
Google would have the option to sell the software off in lieu of compliance. The DOJ and state antitrust enforcers would have to approve any potential buyers.
Google will have a chance to present its own proposals in December.
DATA SHARING
Google would be required under the proposals to license search results to competitors at nominal cost and share data it gathers from users with competitors for free. It would be barred from collecting any user data that it cannot share because of privacy concerns.
Prosecutors crafted the proposals after speaking with companies that compete with Google, including search engine DuckDuckGo.
“We think this is a really big deal and will lower the barriers to competition,” said Kamyl Bazbaz, DuckDuckGo’s head of public affairs.
DuckDuckGo has accused Google of trying to dodge European Union rules requiring data sharing. Google said it will not compromise user trust by giving competitors sensitive data.
