Opinion The US Justice Department’s proposed remedies to address Google’s monopoly control of the search services and search text advertising markets should be reconsidered in light of the broader problems with technology platforms.
The floated fixes should also be evaluated for how they will affect other aspects of Google’s business that face unresolved legal challenges, like the government’s ad tech antitrust case.
Something needs to be done to rein in Google’s unlawful behavior, but the fixes proposed by the Justice Department will create collateral damage while leaving competitors, alleged monopolists among them, free to continue engaging in similar self-serving behavior.
The DOJ has proposed [PDF]: disallowing exclusionary contracts, such as those that make Google Search the default in Apple’s Safari, so rivals won’t be frozen out; forcing Google to sell off its Chrome browser and preventing investments in rival search-ad-AI tech as a way to kill competition; requiring Google to make its search index available to rivals at nominal cost; and providing advertisers with more visibility into Google’s data.
Android divestiture is also a possible ask, if self-preferencing mechanisms designed to prevent Google from favoring its search and text ads services fall short.
But if the Justice Department gets its way years from now, once Google has exhausted its appeals, it won’t just be Google that pays the price. That’s evident from the statement issued by Mozilla, which warned that a blanket prohibition on search agreements – like the one Mozilla has with Google to make Google Search the default in Firefox – “will negatively impact independent browsers like Firefox and have knock-on effects for an open and accessible internet.”
If Chrome were to be sold to a private equity group, it is highly likely they would prioritize cost-cutting measures
Alex Moore, executive director of Open Web Advocacy, told The Register, “The primary concern of OWA is that the vast majority of research and development supporting the web platform currently takes place within the Chromium project, driven predominantly by Google engineers.
“If Chrome were to be sold to a private equity group, it is highly likely they would prioritize cost-cutting measures. This could significantly hinder the future development of the web platform, creating a ripple effect that ultimately strengthens Apple’s and Google’s native ecosystems at the expense of the open web. We advocate for implementing measures that strike a careful balance between addressing Google’s dominance in search and safeguarding the health and future development of the open web.”
Moore said the potential impact on Mozilla, one of only three remaining browser engine developers, needs to be considered, and voiced support for allowing it to retain the ability to establish a non-exclusive search engine deal with Google.
“Despite its relatively small market share, Mozilla plays a crucial role in contributing to the health and diversity of the web ecosystem,” said Moore. “A sudden loss of its primary revenue source would leave it without a viable alternative, threatening its ability to continue its vital work.”
It seems highly likely that Google’s largess will diminish if it has to part ways with Chrome, and the search biz could be further constrained if the government wins its separate antitrust case against Google’s ad auction business.
The other major mobile device platform owner, Apple, is more focused on maintaining its App Store ecosystem. The iBiz has also faced scrutiny and allegations of monopolistic practices in the US and has been forced to make competition concessions in the EU.
A lighter-touch regulatory option would be to force Google to put the open source Chromium project under the control of an independent foundation while also disallowing self-preferencing mechanisms within the browser. This might include, for example, a ban on steering people to sign in to their Google Accounts in Chrome, which would reduce the ad-relevant data Google can gather that its rivals cannot.
But limiting Google’s ability to extract monopoly revenue will have less impact if competitors like Apple and Microsoft, which are also facing potential antitrust scrutiny, can keep doing business as usual. A Google-focused remedy will just tilt the playing field in a different direction.
What’s needed is a comprehensive set of rules that forbid self-preferencing and establish a uniform set of platform rights for third-party developers and privacy rights consumers across all tech platforms.
Instead of forcing Google to share data gained through privileged access, give consumers the ability to prevent any company from gaining that data. Require all browser makers to offer users a choice of search engine through a randomized menu free of dark patterns, rather than relying on paid defaults. Ensure that in-app browsers reflect the settings and modifications of third-party default browsers. Every setting should be opt-in rather than opt-out.
Addressing bad behavior on a piecemeal basis either invites workarounds or replaces one platform tyrant with another. While the Justice Department can’t seek remedies for companies that are not found to be in violation of the law, its proposals should be crafted with an eye toward a more coherent vision of platform behavior and responsibilities. ®