The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing its aggressive pursuit of structural reforms at Google, most notably advocating for the divestiture of its Chrome web browser. In a recent court filing, the DOJ reaffirmed its stance, emphasising that such a move is crucial to curbing Google’s monopolistic grip on the online search market. This development comes amid a prolonged legal battle that could significantly reshape Google’s business operations and set a precedent for antitrust enforcement in the tech industry.
The legal conflict between the DOJ and Google dates back to October 2020, when the DOJ, in collaboration with 11 state attorneys general, filed an antitrust lawsuit against the tech giant. The lawsuit accused Google of illegally maintaining monopolies in the online search and search advertising markets through exclusionary agreements and anti-competitive practices.
At the core of these allegations were Google’s default search engine agreements with mobile device manufacturers and web browsers, including its own Chrome browser. The DOJ argued that these agreements prevented rival search engines from gaining market share, reinforcing Google’s dominance.
Following nearly four years of legal proceedings, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled in August 2024 that Google had violated antitrust laws by monopolising online search and advertising markets. The court’s decision marked a major victory for regulators and set the stage for potential remedies aimed at dismantling Google’s anti-competitive advantage.
In its latest legal filing, the DOJ reiterated its call for Google to sell off its Chrome browser, arguing that its control over Chrome gives it an unfair advantage in the search engine market. The department contends that Chrome serves as a gateway to Google’s search engine, reinforcing its dominance by making Google Search the default option and discouraging users from switching to competitors.
According to the DOJ, divesting Chrome from Google’s ecosystem would restore competition and offer rival search engines a more level playing field. In its court submission, the DOJ described Google as an “economic goliath” that “wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that — no matter what occurs — Google always wins”.
The Chrome divestiture proposal is among the most aggressive antitrust measures proposed against a major technology firm in recent history. If enacted, it would force Google to sever one of its most strategically important assets, significantly altering its search and advertising business model.
Interestingly, the DOJ has softened its position regarding Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) operations. While previous proposals included mandatory divestiture of Google’s AI ventures, the DOJ now seeks prior notification of any future AI investments. This shift suggests a more cautious regulatory approach, balancing concerns over market competition with the recognition of AI’s importance in technological advancement.
This revised stance reflects the DOJ’s increasing focus on monitoring and regulating AI-related acquisitions rather than imposing immediate structural changes. The move signals regulators’ intent to keep a close eye on Google’s AI expansion without directly impeding its innovation efforts.
Google has strongly opposed the DOJ’s proposed remedies. A Google spokesperson criticised the DOJ’s approach in a statement to Reuters, stating that “sweeping proposals continue to go miles beyond the Court’s decision, and would harm America’s consumers, economy and national security.”
Google maintains that its business practices are lawful and pro-competitive, emphasising that its dominance stems from delivering superior products rather than engaging in monopolistic behaviour. The company has signalled its intent to appeal Judge Mehta’s ruling, setting the stage for a prolonged legal battle that could reach the Supreme Court.
The next key legal milestone in the case will occur in April 2025, when the court is scheduled to hear arguments from both the DOJ and Google on the appropriate remedies. Judge Mehta is expected to issue a final ruling on the remedies by August 2025, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for Google and the broader tech industry.
If the court orders Google to divest Chrome, it would mark one of the most significant antitrust interventions in the tech industry’s history. The ruling could influence future regulatory actions against other dominant tech firms, signalling a shift toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust laws in digital markets.
Several industry analysts argue that a forced Chrome divestiture could pave the way for new browser competitors and weaken Google’s grip on the online advertising ecosystem. However, others caution that such a move could create unintended consequences, such as disrupting the user experience for millions of Chrome users and potentially fragmenting the browser market.
The case also underscores the broader push by regulators worldwide to rein in Big Tech’s dominance. The European Union, United Kingdom, and other jurisdictions have pursued similar antitrust actions against Google, Amazon, Apple, and Meta, reflecting a growing consensus on the need for greater competition in digital markets.
The DOJ’s latest push to force Google to sell off Chrome signals a pivotal moment in the ongoing antitrust battle against the tech giant. As Google prepares to defend its business model, the court’s decision in the coming months will determine whether the world’s most powerful search engine will face an unprecedented structural breakup.
With key hearings scheduled for April 2025 and a remedies ruling expected by August 2025, the case remains one of the most closely watched legal battles in the tech industry. Regardless of the outcome, the implications will extend far beyond Google, potentially reshaping antitrust enforcement and competitive dynamics in the digital economy for years to come.
