The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued Monday that a federal judge should force Google to divest from its Chrome browser, suggesting it could send a message to other “monopolists” amid the government’s multiple antitrust battles with Big Tech.
The DOJ and Google offered their opening salvos in court, as they kicked off a three-week trial to determine remedies after Google was found to have an illegal monopoly over online search.
“We’re at an inflection point,” David Dahlquist, the DOJ’s lead attorney, said Monday. “This is the time for the court to tell Google and all other monopolists that there are consequences when you break antitrust laws.”
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled last August that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly over online search through a series of exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and browser developers that secured its search engine as the default.
The government has argued that splitting off the Chrome browser from Google is necessary, alongside a host of other remedies, to open up the search market and end the tech firm’s monopoly.
Google contends that the DOJ’s proposed remedies are “fundamentally flawed” and “completely untethered” from the conduct at issue in the case — Google’s exclusive distribution agreements.
“It is a wish list from competitors looking to get the benefits of Google’s extraordinary innovation,” John Schmidtlein, Google’s lead attorney, said Monday in his opening arguments.
Beyond the Chrome divestiture, the government also seeks to bar Google from entering into the exclusive agreements at the heart of the case, as well as require the company to share search and advertising data with competitors.
If these remedies fail to rein in Google’s monopoly or the company circumvents them, the DOJ has included a contingency — requiring Google to split from its operating system Android.
Dahlquist argued Monday that these various proposals will “reinforce each other to encourage competition.”
He slammed Google’s proposal, by contrast, as a “superficial Band-Aid approach that does nothing,” dismissing its enforcement provision as “toothless.”
The company’s proposal seeks more limited restrictions on its agreements with device manufacturers and browsers, removing the exclusive nature of such agreements while still allowing for deals.
Schmidtlein argued that Google’s remedies respond directly to the court’s findings in the case, while the DOJ’s proposal goes well beyond them.
“Google won its place in the market fair and square,” he said. “Divesting Google of its hard-earned innovations so that lesser rivals can use them will not promote competition.”
Chrome and Android are both deeply tied to Google’s infrastructure, Schmidtlein contended, which could create problems if they are divested. He also argued that the government’s data sharing requirements would boost Google’s rivals, while posing privacy and security risks.
Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, who leads the DOJ’s antitrust division, suggested Monday that the Google case was a unifying force in an increasingly polarized political climate.
“In a time of political division in our nation, this case against Google brings everyone together. This case was filed during President Trump’s first term and litigated across three administrations. It has unified our nation,” Slater said in a statement.
She emphasized that the government has been joined by 49 states, two territories and Washington, D.C., in bringing the search case.
“If Google’s conduct is not remedied, it will control much of the internet for the next decade and not just in internet search, but in new technologies like artificial intelligence,” she added.
The trial comes at a crucial moment for Google, as its future appears increasingly uncertain in the wake of a second antitrust loss last week.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled Thursday that the company had illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly over advertising technology, which helps connect advertisers and publishers to fill ad space online.
The decision represents another major blow for Google, although it claimed partial victory, emphasizing the parts of the case where the judge sided with the company. It has vowed to appeal the “other half” of the ruling.
Meta is also currently on trial at the same courthouse in Washington, D.C., seeking to fend off allegations from the Federal Trade Commission that the social media giant entrenched its monopoly over social networking with its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
