The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has intensified its antitrust pursuit against Google, recommending the tech giant divest its Chrome browser to tackle its dominance in the search market.
This move comes after Google’s significant legal defeat in August 2024, where it was found guilty of monopolistic practices in online search and advertising. The DOJ’s proposal, which is detailed in documents filed with a Washington court, seeks to dismantle the interconnected dominance of Chrome and Google’s search engine, a relationship that regulators argue gives Google an unfair competitive edge.
Why the DOJ Targets Chrome
The DOJ claims Google’s control over Chrome reinforces its monopoly by ensuring Google Search is the default engine for billions of users. The proposed remedy demands that Google “promptly and fully” divest Chrome to a buyer approved by the court.
This is seen as a necessary step to break the cycle in which Chrome’s market share strengthens Google’s search dominance.
The DOJ’s focus on Chrome stems from Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling in August 2024, which concluded that Google’s business model was unfairly cemented through default agreements with device manufacturers and browser developers. Google reportedly spent $26.3 billion in 2021 on such agreements, ensuring that its search engine remained the default choice on popular devices and platforms.
Shift in DOJ’s Stance on AI Divestitures
While the DOJ is firm on Chrome divestiture, it has reversed its earlier stance regarding Google’s AI investments. The department has dropped demands for Google to divest its stake in AI companies like Anthropic, citing concerns about disrupting the evolving AI sector.
However, Google is now required to notify regulators about any future investments in generative AI. This oversight aims to prevent potential market distortions while acknowledging the strategic importance of AI in the tech sector.
Anthropic, a major AI startup backed by Google, recently reached a valuation of $61.5 billion following a significant funding round.
Google’s broader AI initiatives, including its Gemini model, are also drawing attention, particularly over privacy concerns related to data usage.
Google’s plan to use search histories to personalize AI responses through Google Gemini has raised criticism from privacy advocates.
Google’s Response
Google has strongly opposed the DOJ’s proposed remedies. The company argues that the demands exceed the scope of the original court ruling and could disrupt business operations, harm consumers, and create broader economic risks.
A Google spokesperson described the DOJ’s measures as proposals that “continue to go miles beyond the Court’s decision,” emphasizing the company’s stance that its services enhance both security and user experience.
The court is expected to deliberate on the DOJ’s proposed remedies in April 2025, with a final decision anticipated by August. If the court sides with the DOJ, Google could be forced to undergo one of its largest corporate restructurings to date.
Such a decision could reshape competition dynamics in the browser and search markets, providing new opportunities for rival companies.
The outcome of this case is expected to influence broader regulatory trends, particularly concerning how governments address the market power of major tech firms. The decision could also set a precedent for how other large technology companies are held accountable for practices deemed to hinder market competition.
Global Regulatory Pressure: EU Scrutiny Intensifies
Beyond the United States, Google is also facing mounting regulatory scrutiny in Europe. In January, former European leaders called on the European Commission to consider breaking up Google’s advertising business.
They argued that Google’s control over the ad-tech supply chain is limiting competition and harming independent journalism. They emphasized that Google’s consolidated control could distort market dynamics.
This European push follows longstanding concerns about Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick in 2007, which granted it unprecedented influence over the digital ad ecosystem.
Critics argue that this dominance allows Google to control both sides of the ad transaction process, disadvantaging competitors and publishers alike. The European Commission is reportedly exploring whether this arrangement violates competition standards, suggesting that enforcement actions could be imminent.
Google’s AI Innovations and Publisher Concerns
Google’s AI initiatives, though spared from divestiture, continue to face intense scrutiny. The company’s AI Overviews and upcoming AI Mode, which generate summaries for search queries, have drawn criticism from publishers.
Concerns have been raised that these tools reduce traffic to original websites by directly answering queries within the search interface. This could diminish revenue streams for publishers who rely on organic search traffic.
Additionally, Google’s decision to use search histories to personalize AI-generated responses has heightened privacy concerns. Critics argue that such practices require greater transparency and opt-in controls to ensure users can manage their personal data responsibly.
Privacy advocates have highlighted the potential risks of data misuse, stressing the need for more robust regulatory oversight.
Broader Implications: The Epic Games Ruling
Google’s regulatory challenges extend beyond its core services. In 2024 the company lost an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, resulting in a court order mandating Google to allow third-party app stores on Android for at least three years.
The court concluded that Google’s control over app distribution stifled competition and harmed developers, a verdict that has already started reshaping the Android ecosystem.
Although Google has announced plans to appeal the decision, the case has intensified broader conversations about how platform operators control app ecosystems. Regulators and developers alike have pointed to this case as evidence of the need for more open and competitive markets in digital app distribution.
The Road Ahead for Google
The upcoming trial over the DOJ’s proposed remedies is expected to be a decisive moment for Google. If ordered to divest Chrome, the company will lose one of its strongest tools for sustaining dominance in search. Such a decision could have lasting effects on market dynamics, opening the door for competitors in the browser and search sectors.
Moreover, this case may influence global regulatory efforts, encouraging enforcement bodies to take more aggressive action against dominant tech companies. Whether this leads to lasting changes in Google’s business strategy or a broader shift in industry practices will depend on the court’s final ruling and the reactions from global regulators.
