�����鶹Ӱ����Ƶ

D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb, in coordination with the Justice Department and 38 other state attorneys general, has announced a detailed proposal to dismantle Google’s internet search monopoly.

The sweeping remedies, filed as part of an ongoing antitrust lawsuit, aim to restore competition, protect consumer choice, and level the playing field for digital market rivals.

The move follows a landmark August 2024 ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., which found that Google violated antitrust laws by maintaining an illegal monopoly over internet search engines and related advertising markets. The remedies proposed this week target practices regulators say stifled competition and harmed consumers.

The Proposed Remedies

The proposed final judgment (PFJ) includes several aggressive measures to curb Google’s influence:

• End Default Search Deals: Google would no longer be allowed to pay manufacturers or browsers to make its search engine the default option on devices such as iPhones or Android smartphones.
• Mandatory Data Sharing: Google would be required to share data it collected through monopolistic practices with competitors, ensuring privacy safeguards are in place.
• Divestiture of Chrome and Potentially Android: Google must sell its Chrome web browser, which regulators claim is a critical access point to its search monopoly. Additional divestitures, including the Android operating system, could follow if compliance issues persist.
• AI and Search Neutrality: Google would be barred from requiring its search engine or artificial intelligence (AI) products to be the default on Android devices. Publishers would also have the option to prohibit Google from using their data to train AI models.

In addition, the PFJ proposes a public education campaign funded by Google to inform consumers about its past practices and promote awareness of alternative search engines. The initiative may also include short-term financial incentives for users who explore non-Google search platforms.

A five-member technical committee would oversee implementing and enforcing these remedies for at least ten years.

A Bipartisan Push for Accountability

“Today’s proposal represents a critical effort to restore competition and innovation in online search markets,” Schwalb said. “Consumers and businesses deserve free and fair markets, and this coalition will continue fighting to ensure a level playing field.”

The Justice Department echoed Schwalb’s sentiments, asserting in its filing that Google’s dominance in search and advertising markets has resulted in higher prices for advertisers and limited choices for consumers. 

Regulators noted that Google’s tactics have enriched the company at the expense of competition.

Google’s Defense

Google has fiercely opposed the proposed remedies, arguing that they are outdated and would harm innovation. 

Karen Dunn, who previously represented Google in a separate ongoing antitrust case, had called the government’s case a “time capsule” based on an older internet era, where desktop computers and typed URLs dominated online activity. Google has also claimed that such measures would merely shift dominance to other large tech firms like Amazon or Microsoft, without addressing broader market dynamics.

Kent Walker, Google’s chief legal officer, criticized the proposal as an “overly broad interventionist agenda” that could jeopardize user privacy and the company’s leadership in artificial intelligence. Google maintains that its search and advertising technologies benefit consumers and businesses, disputing the need for such drastic actions.

Broader Implications

The case against Google extends beyond search engines. 

In September, the Justice Department and state attorneys general launched another antitrust trial in Virginia, targeting Google’s alleged monopoly in online advertising technology. Regulators contend that Google’s dominance in both the buy and sell sides of digital ad transactions has allowed it to collect excessive fees, further stifling competition.

The proposed remedies filed this week align with the Biden administration’s commitment to reining in Big Tech. However, with President-elect Donald Trump taking office in January, the fate of these aggressive antitrust efforts remains uncertain. The incoming administration’s approach to regulating tech giants could significantly influence the court’s final decisions.

Next Steps

A hearing on the proposed remedies is set to begin in April 2025. If the court approves the Justice Department’s recommendations, Google would have six months to divest its Chrome browser and comply with other mandates. Legal experts expect Google to appeal any adverse rulings, potentially extending the case for years.

“The playing field is not level because of Google’s conduct and the proposed remedies aim to eliminate the ill-gotten advantages it has accumulated,” Justice Department attorneys argued in their filing.