There were many contradictions in antitrust enforcement under Biden. But what if Trump’s administration follows the same path?
In a striking irony, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust case against Google, which was decided last summer, may reduce competition—both in search and in access to the World Wide Web. The DOJ’s proposed remedies would stifle creative destruction in search and would choke off revenues that fund web browsing.
First, we will need some background. As I described this case earlier, “[In August 2024] US District Judge Amit P. Mehta handed down a significant ruling, finding that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly in general internet search and search text advertising.” Though the judge heaped praise on the quality of Google’s service, largely finding that the company had earned its commanding market share, he found Google guilty of holding onto that market share through illegal means. I wrote:
According to Mehta, Google foreclosed Bing, Yahoo, and others by entering into multi-year contracts, primarily with Apple and web browser providers, to be the default search engine in their products. . .. It’s the contract length—often as long as five years with options for renewal—that creates foreclosure, according to the judge.
Unsurprisingly, given the Biden antitrust team’s long-stated desires to break up and reassemble the tech industry according to their personal visions, the DOJ decided that the best remedy for overly long contracts would be to not only prohibit Google from entering into such contracts, but completely restructure the company. As I described before:
[The DOJ’s] proposals include forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser and potentially its Android operating system and requiring Google to share its proprietary data and search results with rivals like Microsoft. The DOJ also seeks to limit Google’s ability to develop artificial intelligence products—a stunning imposition given that the technology is rapidly changing, had nothing to do with the Google’s past acts. . .
If the Trump administration stays on this misguided path, one consequence will be less rivalry and innovation in search. Companies like DuckDuckGo will be encouraged to ride on Google’s search coattails rather than create something different. We know from the turmoil that DeepSeek created that it is possible to overcome what seems to be insurmountable barriers. Furthermore, Google will have less financial ability and less incentive to innovate if it must effectively give them away.
The DOJ’s proposed remedies would also choke the financial engine that makes web browsing possible. Consumers can choose from numerous web browsers, but each is merely a skin on top of a browser engine that does all the work. Building and maintaining browser engines are costly, so there are only three: one from Apple, one from Google, and one from Mozilla. Microsoft used to make one and so did Opera. But both abandoned their efforts, which then were incorporated into Google’s.
Browser engines are open-source, meaning that their code can be used and modified at no cost. But each requires a steward over the code, which means there are costs. Google’s payments to Apple and to Mozilla to be the default search engine helps keep the competition going. This is particularly true for Mozilla as the payments from Google are instrumental in keeping the organization financially viable. If the DOJ gets its way, Mozilla’s browser engine would certainly be in jeopardy, perhaps leaving only Apple’s and Google’s engines.
Hopefully, the Trump DOJ will have a better understanding of business finance than did Biden’s and revise the DOJ remedies request to only those issues that are relevant to the case. If not, yet another fallout of Biden’s antitrust legacy might be less competition and less innovation.