The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently escalated its antitrust case against Google by proposing a bold remedy: forcing the company to sell its Chrome browser and decouple Android from its search engine.
Google has labeled these demands a threat to user privacy, security, and its ability to drive innovation.
The move, aimed at reducing Google’s dominance in search and advertising, has now also drawn sharp criticism from Eric Schmidt, Google’s former CEO and chairman. In an recent interview with NPR, Schmidt described the plan as “misguided,” warning it would harm consumers, undermine privacy, and fragment the internet ecosystem.
“This solution doesn’t work, harms consumers and it’s just a bad idea,” Schmidt said in a recent interview with NPR. “I think this is a terrible idea from the government. To take an integrated system and break it into pieces and think that somehow that creates choices is not to understand how these products work.”
Antitrust Context: DOJ Targets Google’s Ecosystem
The DOJ’s latest filing follows an August 2024 ruling by Judge Amit Mehta, which found Google guilty of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The ruling cited Google’s exclusive agreements with companies like Apple, worth $20 billion annually, as a key factor in cementing its monopoly in the search market.
These contracts ensured Google’s search engine became the default choice on devices such as iPhones, effectively sidelining rivals like Microsoft’s Bing.
Prosecutors argue that Chrome’s tight integration with Google’s ad and search systems gives the company an insurmountable advantage. Holding over 64% of the global browser market, Chrome’s dominance has prevented meaningful competition from browsers like Mozilla Firefox and Microsoft Edge.
Android, the world’s leading mobile operating system with a 71% market share, is also in regulators’ crosshairs. DOJ officials claim that unbundling Android from Google’s services would level the playing field for competing search providers, potentially breaking Google’s grip on mobile advertising.
Privacy, Security, and the Risks of Fragmentation
Schmidt’s most pointed criticism centered on the potential risks to user privacy and security. “Chrome is by far the safest and most secure browser to use, and so if it’s unbundled in some way, customers will just re-bundle it.,” Schmidt stated. Fragmenting its ecosystem would expose users to vulnerabilities, weakening trust in online systems, he thinks
Kent Walker, Google’s Chief Legal Officer, previously warned that such divestitures would “endanger the security and privacy of millions of Americans, and undermine the quality of products people love, by forcing the sale of Chrome and potentially Android,” and compromise product quality. Google argues that its integrated ecosystem enables seamless updates and enhanced security—features that could be compromised if its services were separated.
The proposed unbundling of Android poses similar challenges. Critics within Google have expressed concerns that inconsistent updates across Android devices could lead to significant security gaps, potentially exposing users to data breaches.
|
Related: |
AI and Gemini: A Central Battlefront
The DOJ’s case also highlights Google’s use of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly its Gemini model, which powers AI summaries in search results. These summaries, praised for their efficiency, have drawn criticism from publishers who argue they divert traffic from original content and threaten their business models.
Schmidt defended AI’s role in improving search but supported giving publishers more control. Websites “should be able to opt out from [AI] scraping their data” he suggested.
The DOJ is reportedly exploring rules to address this issue, proposing that publishers retain the right to block their content from appearing in AI-generated features like Gemini while maintaining traditional search visibility.
Leadership Shifts and Legal Pressures
As Google faces mounting challenges, its internal dynamics are shifting. In October 2024, Nick Fox, a veteran executive, replaced Prabhakar Raghavan as head of search and ads. Raghavan’s tenure was marked by controversy over prioritizing ad revenue at the expense of search quality, with internal emails revealing dissatisfaction among employees.
These leadership changes come amid broader legal setbacks. In October, a federal court ruled in favor of Epic Games, requiring Google to allow third-party app stores on Android and enable developers to bypass its 30% commission on in-app purchases. Google is appealing the decision, arguing it compromises app security and user trust.
The Future of Google and Digital Regulation
Schmidt’s critique reflects broader concerns about regulating Big Tech in an era defined by AI and interconnected ecosystems. As governments worldwide grapple with the dominance of platforms like Google, questions remain about the effectiveness of structural remedies versus alternative approaches, such as fostering direct competition or increasing oversight of existing practices.
“If you’re going to try to deal with the problems of these large companies, my answer is find ways to get them to be more competitive. The competition that you’re seeing now between the players, remember it’s all about A.I., is the most brutal competition I’ve ever seen. This is a case that’s rooted in some older model of competition. I just don’t think it’s correct.” Schmidt emphasized.
The outcome of the DOJ’s case will not only determine the future of Google’s business but also set a precedent for how regulators address the growing influence of technology giants.
