Today, the Department of Justice previewed a sweeping set of remedies for its antitrust case against Google, following the District Court’s verdict that Google’s search default deals improperly gave Google an advantage in search. The DOJ’s all-of-the-above initial proposal floats “structural remedies” regarding Google Chrome, Android, and the Play Store – raising the possibility the agency will seek a company breakup.

The DOJ suggests requiring Google to share its search query data and proprietary search algorithms with competing search engines. It also suggests requiring Google to “educate” consumers on rival search engines, and floats the idea of forbidding Google’s Chrome browser from using Google search by default – despite that not being a part of DOJ’s original case. The agency’s final proposal is expected by November 20. 

“The Justice Department is throwing remedy spaghetti at the wall,” said Chamber of Progress founder and CEO Adam Kovacevich. “It might score some headlines, but it’s a legal non-starter. The Microsoft case established 25 years ago that antitrust remedies must be narrowly tailored to the offending conduct. The Justice Department is throwing out remedies that go far beyond the judge’s ruling, and history tells us that broad remedies won’t survive the appeals process.”

Google’s critics and competitors have proposed a host of broad remedies since the District Court ruled in August. The verdict found that Google’s exclusive distribution agreements contributed to Google’s maintenance of its monopoly power in general search and search text advertising. However, the court found that Google does not have a monopoly in search advertising nor does it owe feature parity obligations to Microsoft in its SA360 ad management platform. Google is expected to appeal the ruling.

###

Chamber of Progress (progresschamber.org) is a center-left tech industry policy coalition promoting technology’s progressive future.  We work to ensure that all Americans benefit from technological leaps, and that the tech industry operates responsibly and fairly.  

Our corporate partners do not have a vote on or veto over our positions. We do not speak for individual partner companies and remain true to our stated principles even when our partners disagree.