US Justice Department continues bid to break up Google
'Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic Goliath’
The DOJ first proposed the measure last year under President Joe Biden, and the latest filing indicates the Department remains committed to this course under the second Trump administration.
The DoJ has softened its stance on Google’s AI investments, however, no longer demanding divestment but instead requiring prior notification for future investments. This includes the billions of dollars Google has invested in AI firm Anthropic.
“Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that - no matter what occurs - Google always wins,” the DOJ said in the filing.
“Through its sheer size and unrestricted power, Google has robbed consumers and businesses of a fundamental promise owed to the public - their right to choose among competing services.”
Despite easing its position on AI, the DOJ said it has not altered the “core components” of its original plan, which includes forcing Google to sell Chrome and banning search-related payments to distribution partners.
On Android, the DOJ has opted to defer a decision, leaving it to the court to determine whether divestment is necessary depending on market competition.
Antitrust action
The DOJ launched its case against Google in 2020, marking the most significant antitrust action in the tech industry since its prolonged legal battle with Microsoft in the 1990s. The lawsuit accuses Google of using anti-competitive practices to maintain its dominance in search, securing agreements that make it the default search engine on web browsers and mobile devices. The DOJ argues that this control allows Google to manipulate its ad auction system, increasing costs for advertisers while boosting its own revenue.
The DOJ’s proposal follows a major antitrust ruling by Judge Amit P. Mehta, who found that Google illegally maintained its dominance in online search. Google has vowed to appeal the decision and has put forward its own alternative proposal, which it claims would address competition concerns by giving partners greater flexibility.