DoJ wants Google to sell off Chrome and ban it from paying to be search default

Filing also suggests it flogging off Android, stops scraping content for AI without opt-out

Updated The US Department of Justice last night finally filed court documents proposing Google divest itself of Chrome – the most popular browser in the world by a huge margin.

The proposed judgment [PDF], which landed late on Wednesday, is aimed at ending Google's alleged monopoly on search. In addition to requiring the ad slinger to sell its Chrome browser, it prohibits Google from paying to make its search engine the default for third parties, causing pain not just for Alphabet but for others.

Google pays billions annually to Apple and Mozilla to remain the default search engine in Safari and Firefox. As The Reg has previously suggested: "If those go away, there will be blood – not just for Google but also for Apple and Mozilla."

The proposal also states that publishers should be able to opt out of AI overviews without fear of retaliation.

To make clear the intent, the DoJ's proposals begin: "The purposes of the following remedies are to unfetter the monopolized markets from Google's exclusionary practices, pry open the monopolized markets to competition, remove barriers to entry, and ensure there remain no practices likely to result in unlawful monopolization."

The words "Google must promptly and fully divest Chrome" are certainly eye-catching, and the filing further prohibits Google from releasing another browser during the judgment's term. But the filing is broad and, if the ruling goes the DoJ's way, could choke off revenue streams on which others depend. In its last financial statement [PDF], Mozilla gave a figure of $510 million for royalties as part of its total revenue of $594 million for 2022. Search engine vendors pay these royalties for being either the default or an option in Firefox. The loss of Google's payments would represent a significant financial hit for Mozilla.

Apple was explicitly named in the filing and could lose between $18 billion and $20 billion should Google be barred from paying to make its search engine the default. In the proposed remedies filing submitted concurrently [PDF], the attorneys general quoted from Judge Mehta's earlier opinion, which stated: "Apple, a fierce potential competitor, remains on the sidelines due to the large revenue share payments it receives from Google."

The proposal also prohibits Google from preferring its own products and services, and from punishing publishers for using a proposed opt-out mechanism to stop the ad slinger scraping content to train AI models and provide overviews. Access to user-side data must be provided to "Qualified Competitors," and the company must allow those competitors to submit queries and use the results as they see fit.

Other proposals include opening Google's ad business to competition and implementing choice screens. Divestiture of Android, its mobile operating system, is not a requirement… yet. The DoJ also suggested that if Google doesn't do what it wants, it might be forced to offload Android.

Legal experts have said they do not believe a forced sale of either Android or Chrome will happen, although some have suggested the search revenue agreements with Apple and Mozilla might take a hit.

To be clear, these are proposals for the consideration of Judge Amit Mehta, who is unlikely to rule before the latter part of 2025. And even after that ruling, it would be hard to imagine a scenario in which the losing party doesn't file an appeal.

Google has, unsurprisingly, come out swinging and described the proposed remedies as "a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America's global technology leadership."

"It would break a range of Google products – even beyond Search – that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives."

Google argued that the proposals would jeopardize user security and privacy, and "deliberately hobble people's ability to access Google Search." It also warned of data potentially being made available to US and overseas companies, micromanagement of Google search and other technologies, and a chilling of the company's investment in AI.

The company also noted it was still early in the process and said it would be filing its own proposals in December. ®

Updated at 12.23 UTC on November 22, 2024 to add:

Following publication of his article, a spokesperson for Mozilla got in touch to share the organization's concern at the proposals and urge a rethink. Mozilla is understandably worried that an attempt to address search engine competition could also impact browser competition.

"If implemented, the prohibition on search agreements with all browsers regardless of size and business model will negatively impact independent browsers like Firefox and have knock-on effects for an open and accessible internet," the spokesperson for Moz told us.

"Firefox and other independent browsers account for a small proportion of US search queries but serve a valuable role in offering US consumers independent choice and privacy. As written, the remedies will harm independent browsers without material benefit to search competition.

"True change requires addressing the barriers to competition and facilitating a marketplace that promotes competition and consumer choice - in search, browsers, and beyond."

More about

TIP US OFF

Send us news


Other stories you might like