To dismantle Google’s illegal monopoly on how Americans search the web, the US Department of Justice wants the tech giant to end its lucrative partnership with Apple, share a trove of proprietary data with competitors and advertisers, and “quickly and completely divest Chrome,” Google’s intellectual property. search engine controlling more than half of the US market. The government wants Google to sell Chrome to a buyer it approves, arguing that divestment would “open monopolized markets to competition, remove barriers to entry, and ensure that no practices remain that could result in illegal monopolization.”
The recommendations are part of a detailed plan that government lawyers presented on Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C. as part of a federal antitrust case against Google that began in 2020. Mehta is expected to decide which of the possible solutions that Google will have to apply to loosen its dominance in the search market.
But the tech giant could still appeal, delaying enforcement of the judge’s order in the future. Google previously argument that the expected proposals would put the privacy and security of its users at risk and make its services less convenient.
Among people who have worked for Google or been closely associated with the company, there is little agreement on whether any of the proposed solutions would significantly change user behavior or make the search engine market more competitive. Four former Google executives who oversaw teams working on Chrome, search and ads told WIRED that innovation from rivals, not government interventions, remains the surest way to unseat Google as the search provider. of the dominant Internet in the country. “You can’t shove an inferior product down people’s throats,” says a former Chrome business leader, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect professional relationships.
But a former Chrome engineering leader acknowledged that the search engine could have been a better product if it weren’t beholden to Google’s other business interests. They allege that Google blocked the introduction of user-friendly features because they would have hurt the company’s advertising revenue, which depends on people clicking on ads in its search results. “Why isn’t autocomplete better? Why isn’t the “new tab” page more effective? Why isn’t browser history better? says the former leader, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. The answer: “There are all these incentives for users to search.” Google did not respond to a request for comment on the claim.
Still, competitors that could benefit from even a minor reduction in Google’s power are optimistic about the expected solutions. “I can see big benefits in putting (Chrome) back in the hands of the community,” says Guillermo Rauch, CEO of Vercel, a company that develops tools for websites, many of which depend on search traffic and advertising revenue. controlled by Google. “Moderating that relationship with corporate overlords will always be a healthy thing,” Rauch says.