Why the U.S. Department of Justice wants Google to divest its Chrome browser | Explained

The U.S. regulator suggested the formation of a ‘Technical Committee’ to monitor how Google is implementing the various remedies [File]
| Photo Credit: AP

The story so far: In August, U.S. Federal Judge Amit Mehta, in a tech industry-defining case, said Google had illegal monopoly power in the online search market. Following that landmark ruling, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on November 20, proposed large-scale remedies that go far beyond the Silicon Valley giant’s online search business. The proposals include possible divestment of Google’s Chrome and Android businesses.

What does the U.S. DOJ proposal mean for Google?

The DOJ, in its proposal, stressed that Google’s hold over the online search market had to be loosened so there can be more competition. The federal government unit has argued for a mandatory sale of the Chrome browser, possible divestment of the Android mobile operating system, a five-year-long ban on entering the browser market, and a restriction on paying third parties like Apple to make Google the default search engine on their products.

Additionally, the DOJ has asked Google to provide publishers and content creators with the ability to block their data from being used to train AI models.

The DOJ suggested the formation of a ‘Technical Committee’ to monitor how Google is implementing the various remedies. The proposal raised concerns about whether Google could use its AI technologies or business strategies such as acquisitions, mergers, and partnerships to bypass these remedies.

Google will also have to make its search index available to rivals for a small fee and be more transparent about its search technologies. In essence, the regulator’s remedies are sweeping and intend on hitting where it hurts Google the most—its profits.

The DOJ wants to make it so that “Google is prohibited from owning not only a browser—following its divestiture of Chrome it may not reenter the browser market for five years—but also from owning or acquiring any investment or interest in any search or search text ad rival, search distributor, or rival query-based AI product or ads technology.”

What was Google’s response?

Google strongly condemned the remedies as a “radical interventionist agenda.”

“DOJ’s wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court’s decision. It would break a range of Google products — even beyond Search — that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives,” said Kent Walker, President, Global Affairs & Chief Legal Officer, Google & Alphabet, in a blog post.

The executive also listed out the potential dangers of the U.S. DOJ’s remedies. This included risking the security and privacy of millions of American users, forcing Google to disclose company and customer data to either domestic or foreign external companies, harming Google’s investments in AI, hurting Google’s business partners, impacting the ease of accessing Google Search, and normalising government micromanagement of a daily user’s internet experience.

“DOJ’s approach would result in unprecedented government overreach that would harm American consumers, developers, and small businesses — and jeopardize America’s global economic and technological leadership at precisely the moment it’s needed most,” said Walker.

How could the proposal affect Google’s Chrome users?

When you buy a new phone, it might be natural to find Google’s search browsers or apps pre-installed and ready for you to use. The idea of intentionally finding and downloading a rival service that suits you better – such as Microsoft’s Bing, DuckDuckGo, Brave, Firefox, etc. – might not even cross your mind because Google is already present or is the easiest first choice.

The DOJ’s proposals aim to break this chain for customers in America, by stopping Google from pushing its services as the go-to option for gadget users. For example, the DOJ’s filing proposed a “choice screen” even on Google devices to make sure that users can freely select either Google Search or a rival product as their default, without being nudged in Google’s direction.

Needless to say, Google was not on board with this plan.

“As just one example, DOJ’s proposal would literally require us to install not one but two separate choice screens before you could access Google Search on a Pixel phone you bought. And the design of those choice screens would have to be approved by the Technical Committee. And that’s just a small part of it. We wish we were making this up,” commented the company in its blog post.

What are the next steps?

The ball is now in U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s court, where the remedies will be evaluated next April. Google is also expected to propose its own remedies before Judge Mehta.

Meanwhile, the DOJ will file a revised proposed final argument on March 7, 2025. It will continue to monitor Google’s activities and business operations to see if any other changes or remedies need to be added.

A transition in the White House can’t be ignored as it is unclear how president-elect Donald Trump might weigh in on the legal matter. Trump had earlier threatened to shut down the search giant but backtracked later.

On the other hand, Judge Mehta said the April 2025 trial would not be moved to accommodate late proposal revision requests by Trump-appointed DOJ officials.