DOJ indicates Google breakup, tech giant fumes

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has indicated that it’s considering a possible breakup of Google as an antitrust remedy. The tech corporation immediately called the proposals “radical.” And so, the battle begins.

A US Federal District judge already dealt a blow to Google in August, finding the tech behemoth guilty of violating US antitrust laws to become the world’s default search engine.

The “United States v. Google” lawsuit – originally filed by the Trump administration in 2020 – argued that the company sought exclusive agreements with tech developers, carriers, and equipment makers to hold its top position as the world’s most used search engine.

Now, the DOJ has made recommendations for Google’s search engine business practices in a filing, and they don’t sound promising to the tech giant at all.

Recommendations seem broad

The remedies needed to “prevent and restrain monopoly maintenance could include contract requirements and prohibitions; non-discrimination product requirements; data and interoperability requirements; and structural requirements,” said the department.

Probably even more importantly, the DOJ also said it was “considering behavioral and structural remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features over rivals or new entrants.”

This would include emerging search access points and features such as artificial intelligence. Quite obviously, it sounds like the DOJ is considering a possible breakup of Google as an antidote to the conundrum.

Default agreements and “other revenue-sharing arrangements” related to Google Search could be limited or prohibited. Google pays billions a year for default search positions on Apple’s iPhones and Samsung devices.

The DOJ suggested in the filing that the devices could be required to provide users with a “choice screen” which could allow them to pick other search engines, too.

Finally, the department also recommended Google make available to rivals its data within the search index and models, including AI-assisted search features such as – quite subpar – AI Overviews.

Moreover, Google could be prohibited “from using or retraining data that cannot effectively be shared with others on the basis of privacy concerns.”

Is the “power of the default” the real target?

In August, Judge Amit Mehta found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which outlaws monopolies. Mehta called Google “a monopolist” back then, but of course, the DOJ’s recommendations are still far from being decided.

The judge says he will seek to rule on the suggested remedies by August 2025, and Google is sure to appeal any decision it sees as unfavorable to the company – thus, the impact of August’s decision will likely not be felt for years.

“Rather than focus on that, the government seems to be pursuing a sweeping agenda that will impact numerous industries and products, with significant unintended consequences for consumers, businesses, and American competitiveness.”

Lee-Anne Mulholland.

Still, the tech giant is already signaling significant disappointment with the DOJ’s filing. Google Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland calls the DOJ’s recommendations “radical.”

“This case is about a set of search distribution contracts,” Mulholland said in a fiery blog post one could call passive-aggressive.

“Rather than focus on that, the government seems to be pursuing a sweeping agenda that will impact numerous industries and products, with significant unintended consequences for consumers, businesses, and American competitiveness.”

Mulholland added that “hampering Google’s AI tools risks holding back American innovation at a critical moment,” meaning the current AI rat race.

Both sides look ready to keep on fighting. However, some legal experts say Google’s breakup is unlikely – suggesting it in a filing could be a tool to pressure the tech giant into doing away with certain exclusive agreements such as the deal with Apple.

Judge Mehta signaled this very idea back in August when he mentioned the “power of the default.”

The government could actually be content if Google simply made it easier for users to try other search engines – and to make a decision whether to use those or to return to Google.