In late April, the Department of Justice (DOJ) opened the remedies phase of the Google Search case. Last year, the DOJ proposed radical remedies that would go far beyond the behavior at issue in the trial: agreements to make Google the default search engine on mobile devices.
Throughout the remedies hearing, the government presented a case that relies heavily on the idea that forcing Google to divest the popular Chrome browser, and potentially the Android operating system, is necessary to protect Microsoft and other competitors. Setting aside that this is not the purpose of U.S. antitrust law, little has been discussed regarding how this change would actually benefit the billions of consumers who choose Google search because it is free, familiar, and has set the bar for online search over the past two decades. Even less attention has been paid to how this proposal would impact the thousands of developers who build products on Chrome and the Chromium platforms.
The consumer welfare standard, which has governed U.S. antitrust law for decades, holds that government market intervention should be limited to instances where there is clear consumer harm, such as raising prices, reducing output, or stifling innovation. However, Google Search was developed and remains free to use. As the Judge’s liability decision noted, it is constantly updated and improved, and is at the forefront of innovation. This is particularly true in search-adjacent products and services, such as Google Business Profile, Google Analytics, and others.
The failure to adhere to the consumer welfare standard and instead prioritize the needs of competitors who failed to produce a better product should be grounds for the Judge to reject the DOJ’s misguided remedies. Not only is switching search engines on a mobile device straightforward, but it’s also not something consumers are actually complaining about. And it’s often easier than changing the default web browser on Windows PCs from Microsoft’s Edge. Google remains the majority choice for consumers because it is simply the better product.
Beyond these issues, the case has significant other shortcomings. Divesting Chrome and Android has little to do with the underlying case, and would fundamentally change the developer ecosystem, and not for the better. Chrome and Android provide myriad resources that benefit developers, including the open-source Chromium platform that developers can build on, a state-of-the-art security and privacy infrastructure, and a stamp of approval from one of the most trusted companies in the world to ensure a high level of confidence in even the smallest apps.
An independent Chrome is unlikely to have the resources to invest in growth or security, or maintain a fully open-source Chromium, of which Google is the majority contributor. Similarly, even though it is a contingent remedy at this stage, divesting Android will return the app ecosystem to a world rife with interoperability issues, and hand Apple dominance over the smartphone market on a silver platter.
All of this raises significant questions about the next wave of innovations. How will the court’s decisions here impact the next market-defining tech innovator? By forcing Google to divest Chrome and/or Android, without clear consumer harms, the government is essentially capping how much successful innovators can grow. A hypothetical illustrates this point: if Epic Games were to build an ecosystem that extended the reach of its experience to augmented reality devices, would they now be forbidden from monetizing that product because they will inevitably have advantages for their products over competitors; even if they are innovating with homegrown tools, or partnering with device manufacturers to expand their user base?
Similarly, we are standing at the precipice of the AI phase of the digital age, where large language models are already changing the way we search for information, create content, and interact online in ways not yet imagined when this case was filed five years ago. If OpenAI or Anthropic render browsers virtually obsolete in five years, won’t this idea of Google’s dominance of a dead market seem quaint? Meanwhile, the ripple effects of the decision will continue reverberating through tech for decades.
Instead of siding with the DOJ, the Judge should rely on precedent and facts to ensure the remedies are narrowly tailored to the offense and not an overbroad sledgehammer that will fundamentally change the app ecosystem. If Google is guilty of violating antitrust law by paying Apple and others to be the default search engine on devices, then the appropriate remedy should focus on those contracts.
Breaking the app ecosystem shouldn’t be the answer.
Read more developers’ perspectives on this issue in The Information, Miami Herald, and Our Weekly Los Angeles.
