Google has voiced its concerns after the U.S. Department of Justice suggested it might demand the tech giant break up parts of its business, potentially splitting its Chrome and Android divisions.
This development is the latest in an ongoing legal battle concerning Google‘s alleged monopoly in the online search market.
In a blog post, Google expressed apprehension that the DOJ’s requests “go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case,” suggesting a broader government agenda with potentially negative consequences for various industries.
Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, said the case is centered on Google’s search distribution contracts, not the broader range of products and services the government seems to be targeting. She cautioned against “government overreach” that could stifle innovation and harm consumers.
“We believe that today’s blueprint goes well beyond the legal scope of the Court’s decision about Search distribution contracts. Government overreach in a fast-moving industry may have negative unintended consequences for American innovation and America’s consumers. We look forward to making our arguments in court,” said Mulholland.
The case is one of the most significant antitrust trials against a tech company in the United States in decades, drawing comparisons to the landmark Microsoft case of the late 1990s, where it was ruled that Microsoft’s browser dominance of the PC market constituted a monopoly.
Google’s current legal battle stems from a 2020 DOJ lawsuit accusing the company of illegally monopolizing the online search and advertising markets. The complaint said, “Google of today is a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet. For many years, Google has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising – the cornerstones of its empire.”
Newsweek reached out to Google but it declined to comment. Newsweek also reached out to the Department of Justice for comment via its official media request form.
The trial began in 2023 and saw Google CEO Sundar Pichai take the stand, defending the company’s practices. Pichai argued that Google’s market dominance stems from the quality of its products, not from any nefarious business dealings.
“We want to make it very, very seamless and easy for users to use our service,” he said during the proceedings.
The lawsuit, joined by 38 state attorneys general, culminated in August 2024 when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google had acted illegally to maintain its search engine monopoly.
In his 277-page opinion at the time, Mehta said, “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The DOJ’s case against Google revolves around exclusive agreements the company made with device manufacturers like Apple and Samsung. Evidence was presented at the trial to claim that Google paid billions of dollars annually to secure its position as the default search engine on devices like iPhones and web browsers like Mozilla Firefox.
Internal Google documents and witness testimonies during the trial revealed the scale of these agreements. For instance, in 2021 alone, Google spent $26.3 billion to maintain its default status. The tech giant’s partnership with Apple was particularly lucrative, generating $18 billion that year.
One of Google’s primary objections to the DOJ’s proposal is the potential disruption to privacy and security. The DOJ’s suggestion to force Google to share its search queries and data with competitors was labeled by Mulholland as a serious privacy risk by the company.
Google claims that sharing sensitive search data with other companies could expose users to security breaches, as third-party companies may not adhere to the same high security standards​.
Mulholland said in the official statement, “In the hands of a different company without strong security practices, bad actors could access [this data] to identify you and your search history.”
Google also resisted any potential breakup of its Chrome and Android divisions. According to Mulholland, these businesses have cost billions of dollars to develop and are offered for free, benefiting both consumers and competitors. “Splitting off Chrome or Android would break them – and many other things,” she said.
Some critics of Mehta’s decision argue that a solution to Google’s dominance in the search market and deals with Apple and Samsung will be complicated to devise.
“That same market reality means that no remedy prohibiting Google from entering into such agreements will rectify the situation,” said Geoffrey A. Manne, president and founder of the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE), in a white paper titled “A Critical Analysis of the Google Search Antitrust Decision.”
“It means that Apple, Mozilla, Samsung, et al. will still choose Google as the default, even if Google is forbidden from paying them a revenue share (or even a set price) to do so—they will just forego the revenue from doing so, and Google will get a windfall,” added Manne.