The U.S. Department of Justice began making its case Monday for potentially breaking up parts of Google, asking a federal judge in Washington D.C. to compel the sale of the Chrome browser and impose other restrictions to remedy the company’s illegal maintenance of its internet search monopoly.
Kicking off a multi-week remedies trial, government lawyers argued that forcing Google to divest Chrome is a necessary step to inject competition into the search market, which Google dominates with over 90% share. Google immediately countered, calling the government’s proposals “extreme” and warning they would harm users and the broader tech ecosystem.
This trial phase follows U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta’s landmark ruling last August, which found Google unlawfully maintained its monopoly power in online search, partly through billions paid annually to companies like Apple (an estimated $20 billion per year) and others (totaling $26.3 billion overall in 2021) to be the preset default search engine on smartphones and browsers.
Judge Mehta is now tasked with deciding what penalties or changes are appropriate, with a ruling anticipated by late summer 2025. DOJ lawyer David Dahlquist framed the government’s goal starkly: “We’re here to restore competition to these markets,” he told the court, seeking remedies that would “allow that block of ice to thaw.”
Dahlquist further emphasized the historical context, stating, “The antitrust laws are designed to adapt to advances in technology, the oil companies and railroads of yesterday are the internet and search engines of today.”
DOJ Seeks Structural Fixes, Google Calls Proposals Extreme
The centerpiece of the DOJ’s proposed remedies, reaffirmed in March 2025, is the forced sale of Chrome, the browser used by approximately 65% of internet users globally. Prosecutors argue Google leverages Chrome’s ubiquity to reinforce its search dominance. Beyond the browser sale, the DOJ wants a permanent ban on the exclusive default-search agreements.
It also seeks orders compelling Google to provide rivals, like Microsoft’s Bing or DuckDuckGo, access to certain search and advertising data, including user-side data and search index information, to help them improve their own services. Further proposed changes target Google’s advertising practices, seeking more transparency for advertisers and control over keyword matching.
Addressing concerns about future conduct, the DOJ also highlighted Google’s potential use of AI tools like Gemini to circumvent remedies, pointing to recent deals with Samsung. While an earlier DOJ proposal involving AI divestiture was dropped, the government maintains that if the current proposed remedies fail within five years, a forced sale of the Android operating system might be necessary.
Google Defends Its Position
Google’s lead counsel, John Schmidtlein, vigorously opposed the DOJ’s demands, calling them “extreme” and “fundamentally flawed.” He argued the proposals were “untethered from the liability findings” and that the “message from the government has been loud and clear: Google should be punished.”
Schmidtlein maintained Google achieved its success through legitimate means – “hard work and ingenuity” – including superior products and smart investments that capitalized on the “mobile revolution,” stating, “Google won its place in the market fair and square.” The company argues that forcing a Chrome sale is unprecedented and would disrupt the open-source Chromium project – the foundation for Chrome and other browsers like Microsoft Edge – potentially harming the broader web ecosystem.
The company further argues the DOJ’s “[…] result-oriented purpose is to force consumers, browser developers and sellers of Android mobile devices to use rival search engines — even though rivals are demonstrably inferior to Google and consumers overwhelmingly prefer Google,” according to its pre-hearing brief.
Google’s President of Global Affairs, Kent Walker, previously warned the proposals would “endanger the security and privacy of millions of Americans” and could even affect national security. Google has suggested less drastic alternatives, such as allowing default deals on a year-to-year basis and making it easier for partners like Mozilla to feature rival search options. The DOJ, however, dismissed these suggestions as “anemic.”
High-Stakes Hearing With Broad Implications
The trial, scheduled to run until May 9, will feature testimony from key industry players. The DOJ plans to call executives including DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg, Brian Provost, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing’s Michael Schechter, OpenAI’s Nick Turley, and Google AI lead Sissie Hsiao, alongside technical expert Professor James Mickens. Google’s witness list includes CEO Sundar Pichai and Apple SVP Eddy Cue. Apple, whose lucrative search deal is a focal point, unsuccessfully sought to intervene directly in this trial phase but can still submit written testimony.
This case lands amidst a cascade of antitrust challenges for Google worldwide. A separate federal judge recently ruled its ad tech business involves illegal monopolization, and a jury previously found its Android app store policies anticompetitive in the Epic Games lawsuit. Coupled with European regulatory actions and a Chinese investigation, the collective weight of these cases could potentially lead to significant changes in how Google operates and how digital markets are regulated, drawing comparisons to historic antitrust battles involving AT&T and Microsoft.
Last Updated on April 24, 2025 10:48 pm CEST
