The US Department of Justice has reaffirmed its plans to force Google to divest its web browser, Chrome, in a new filing. The DoJ had pledged to take action to challenge what it calls Google’s “anticompetitive behaviour” even under the Biden administration, and this looks set to continue under the Trump regime. In its latest […]
The US Department of Justice has reaffirmed its plans to force Google to divest its web browser, Chrome, in a new filing.
The DoJ had pledged to take action to challenge what it calls Google’s “anticompetitive behaviour” even under the Biden administration, and this looks set to continue under the Trump regime.
In its latest filing to federal Judge Amit Mehta, the DoJ maintains that Google must sell off Chrome to restore competition in the online search market.
The filing argues that Google’s “anticompetitive conduct” has deprived users of a fundamental American value — their “ability to choose in the marketplace.”
By using its “sheer size and unrestricted power,” Google has allegedly stripped consumers and businesses of “a fundamental promise owed to the public” — the right to select from competing services.
The filing describes Google as an “economic Goliath” that manipulates the marketplace to ensure that “no matter what occurs — Google always wins.”
The remedy suggested by the DoJ requires Google to “divest Chrome, which will permanently stop Google’s control of this critical search access point and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to the Internet.”
The move follows last year’s landmark antitrust ruling, where a US court found Google guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly over search, with Chrome playing an integral role in allowing the tech giant to maintain its position.
If a judge backs the DoJ’s request, Chrome, which has a user base estimated at around 3.4 billion people, would be sold to a competitor, who would need to be vetted first due to national security concerns.
While the DoJ has moved its position on some of the remedies, including its position on both Google’s AI assets and its ownership of smartphone operating system Android, the search engine giant submitted the same filing to the court in its response as the one filed last year.
As part of its own suggested remedies, Google has said it is open to adjusting the way web search placement deals work on both browsers and Android.
The government, however, has rowed back on its request to limit Google’s AI investments, though it wants the company to notify the DoJ before making any further moves.
The US had also offered Google the option of selling Android, which is the most-used smartphone OS in the world. Instead of forcing a sale, the DoJ is now asking the court to impose a number of restrictions on how Google promotes its own products on smartphones and tablets—for example, preventing them from being made mandatory.
Industry voices, particularly those in the data privacy advocacy space, have responded positively to the DOJ’s recent action.
Rik Viergever, COO at Murena, a company offering privacy-focused alternatives for mobile devices and cloud storage, stated: “As a data privacy advocate, I welcome the DOJ’s decision forcing Google to sell Chrome,” but he stressed that this step should be seen as “only the start.”
Google ditches plans to phase out third-party cookies
Viergever argued that “Google and Apple have long had a stranglehold” on major tech sectors, including mobile operating systems, search, app stores, and mobile payments.
This dominance, he claimed, leads to “artificially high”prices, “low” quality, and slower innovation, ultimately resulting in a “sub-par experience for the end user.”
He further emphasised that promoting “honest and fair competition” — particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that often develop innovative solutions — could effectively address these concerns.
Viergever added that he wants to see Google sell its Android operating system. He argued that Google’s ability to offer Android for free stems from its extensive revenue streams in areas like “advertising” and “data collection” — making it “almost impossible for other providers” to compete and reinforcing Google’s market dominance.
