In context: Google does not want to sell off Chrome, which the U.S. government has proposed, so it has countered with its own suggestion about how to remedy its outsized and – according to a recent ruling – illegal domination of the online search market.
Google is proposing to modify its agreements with Apple and other partners regarding default search engine settings on new devices. This comes in response to a recent U.S. ruling that found the tech giant unlawfully dominating the online search market.
Google's proposal, submitted to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, suggests a more limited approach compared to the government's push for more drastic measures. It aims to address the court's concerns while urging caution against interventions that could potentially stifle innovation, especially in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence and its impact on online services, including search engines.
While the company plans to appeal the ruling that it holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising, it suggests that the upcoming "remedies" phase should focus primarily on its distribution agreements.
These agreements, which the judge found to give Google a "major, largely unseen advantage over its rivals," have resulted in most U.S. devices coming pre-loaded with Google's search engine. To address this, Google proposes making the agreements non-exclusive, particularly for Android manufacturers, and unbundling the Play Store from Chrome and search for Android phone manufacturers. Additionally, the company suggests allowing browser developers to annually reconsider Google as the default search engine.
Notably, Google's proposal does not include ending revenue-sharing agreements, which provide a portion of ad revenue to device and software companies that set Google as the default search engine. These agreements have been crucial for independent browser developers like Mozilla, with Apple reportedly receiving an estimated $20 billion from its agreement with Google in 2022 alone.
The proposal has already faced criticism from competitors. Kamyl Bazbaz, spokesperson for search engine competitor DuckDuckGo, argued that Google's suggestions attempt to maintain the status quo and fall short of truly restoring competition in the affected markets.
In contrast to Google's more limited approach, the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states are seeking more extensive remedies. These include forcing Google to sell off Chrome and potentially its Android mobile operating system, stopping Google from paying to be the default search engine, ceasing investments in search rivals and query-based AI products, and licensing Google's search results and technology to rivals.
Google maintains that the government's proposed remedies are extreme and don't properly reflect the specific conduct found to be illegal by the judge. The company argues that courts have historically discouraged such drastic measures and that remedies should be of the "same type or class" as the violations.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president for regulatory affairs, emphasized that the company's proposal would allow competing browsers like Apple's Safari to have the freedom to partner with any search engine they deem best for their users. Google also proposes allowing device makers to preload multiple search engines and not requiring them to include Chrome and Google search if they want to include other Google apps.
As the case progresses, Judge Mehta has scheduled a proceeding in April to decide on appropriate measures to address the lack of competition in the industries Google has dominated. This trial will see prosecutors calling witnesses from OpenAI, AI search startup Perplexity, and Microsoft. A final decision is expected by August 2025.
Google fights back: proposes to limit default search agreements, wants to avoid selling Chrome
