‘Google Must Divest Chrome,’ Possibly Android, Says DOJ; Google Fires Back

‘[The] 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. We wish we were making this up,’ says Google’s Kent Walker, president of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer.

The Department of Justice has officially requested that Google be forced to sell Chrome, the most popular web browser on the planet, and potentially its Android business in an unprecedented government move that would reshape the $88.3 billion tech giant.

“For more than a decade, Google has unlawfully maintained its monopolies in general search services and search text advertising through a web of anti-competitive practices,” said the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in a filing to the U.S. District Court of Columbia Judge Amit Mehta Wednesday.

“Google has manipulated its control of Chrome and Android to benefit itself, while sharing monopoly profits under conditions to induce third parties across the ecosystem to help Google maintain its monopolies,” said the DOJ in its filing Wednesday night. “The playing field is not level because of Google’s conduct, and Google’s quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired. … The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages.”

DOJ lawyers said Judge Mehta must impose a range of restrictions on Chrome and Android with the goal of unbinding the search market from anti-competitive practices.

“To address these challenges, Google must divest Chrome, which has fortified [Google’s] dominance,” the DOJ said.

CRN reached out to Google for comment but had not heard back by press time.

Google Fights Back: DOJ Proposal ‘Would Hurt Consumers’ And America’s Tech Industry

In a blog post Thursday, Kent Walker, president of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer for Google, called the DOJ proposal “staggering.”

“[The] DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership,” Walker said. “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.”

Walker said, if approved, the DOJ proposal would endanger the security and privacy of millions of Americas by forcing the sale of Chrome and potentially Android.

In addition, the legal move would hamper Google’s investment in artificial intelligence, “perhaps the most important innovation of our time,” he said.

He also said the move would hurt services like Mozilla’s Forefox and mandate government micromanagement of Google Search—“a Technical Committee with enormous power over” users’ online experience.

“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,” said Walker. “We wish we were making this up.”

DOJ’s Thoughts On Android

In terms of Google Android, the DOJ said there are two options.

“The most straightforward solution—the first option—would be to divest Android, which would prevent Google from using Android to exclude rival search providers,” said the DOJ.

However, the DOJ said that such a divestiture may draw objections from Google or other market participants. As an alternative to the divestiture of Android, the DOJ presented “behavioral remedies that would blunt Google’s ability to use its control of the Android ecosystem to favor its general search services and search text ad monopolies as well as limit Google’s ability to discriminate in favor of its own search and ads businesses.”

DOJ Requirements

The DOJ would require the Mountain View, Calif.-based tech giant to share more information with advertisers.

The government is also asking Judge Mehta to impose data licensing requirements.

Another recommendation is that Google provide websites with more options to prevent their content from being used by Google’s artificial intelligence products.

The government is also pushing for a ban on exclusive contracts with iPhone providers such as Apple to have Chrome as its default web browser.

Chrome Could Be Worth $20 Billion

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh said in a note that Chrome could be worth between $15 billion and $20 billion as the browser has over 3 billion monthly active users.

Pushing Google to sell Chrome, according to the DOJ officials, will split the company's browser from its search engine and create more competition in the online search market.

“The playing field is not level because of Google's conduct, and Google’s quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired,” the Justice Department wrote in a proposed final judgment.

Google said if the DOJ proposals went into effect, it would weaken the privacy and security for users while also hindering Google’s R&D innovation.

“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,” Google said in a statement.

The DOJ Filing

The Justice Department’s new filing Wednesday follows a ruling by Judge Mehta in August saying that Google preserved its search engine dominance by acting as an illegal monopoly.

According to the ruling, Judge Mehta said Google unfairly cut out search engine rivals to enrich itself by creating expensive deals with browsers and phone manufacturers to ensure it had the default search browser spot.

Judge Mehta will decide whether or not to order Google to offload Chrome and potentially Android.

Judge Mehta has scheduled a two-week hearing in April focused on what changes Google must make to remedy what the judge said was its position as an illegal monopoly.

The final decision is expected in 2025.