DOJ indicates it’s considering Google breakup following monopoly ruling

The Department of Justice late Tuesday indicated that it was considering a possible breakup of Google as an antitrust remedy.

The DOJ said it was “considering behavioral and structural remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search.”

The judge has yet to decide on the remedies, and Google will likely appeal, drawing out the process potentially for years.

The Department of Justice late Tuesday made recommendations for Google’s search engine business practices, indicating that it was considering a possible breakup of the tech giant as an antitrust remedy.

The remedies necessary to “prevent and restrain monopoly maintenance could include contract requirements and prohibitions; non-discrimination product requirements; data and interoperability requirements; and structural requirements,” the department said in a filing.

The DOJ also said it was “considering behavioral and structural remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features — including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence — over rivals or new entrants.”

Additionally, the DOJ suggested limiting or prohibiting default agreements and “other revenue-sharing arrangements related to search and search-related products.” That would include Google’s search position agreements with Apple’s iPhone and Samsung devices — deals that cost the company billions of dollars a year in payouts. The agency suggested one way to do this is requiring a “choice screen,” which could allow users to pick from other search engines.

Such remedies would end “Google’s control of distribution today” and ensure “Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow.”

The recommendations come after a U.S. judge in August ruled that Google holds a monopoly in the search market. That ruling came after the government in 2020 filed the landmark case, alleging that Google has kept its share of the general search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance. The court found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which outlaws monopolies.

Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, said the company plans to appeal the ruling and highlighted the court’s emphasis on the high quality of Google’s search products, which the judge also noted in his ruling.

The DOJ also recommended Google make available to competitors its data within its search index and models, including its AI-assisted search features and its ad ranking data. The DOJ is also considering remedies that would “prohibit Google from using or retraining data that cannot be effectively shared with others on the basis of privacy concerns,” according to the filing.

Judge Amit Mehta said he’ll aim to rule on the remedies by August 2025 and an appeal by Google would likely draw out any final impact potentially years.

In response to the Tuesday filing, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, called the DOJ’s recommendations “radical.”

“This case is about a set of search distribution contracts,” Mulholland said in a blog post. “Rather than focus on that, the government seems to be pursuing a sweeping agenda that will impact numerous industries and products, with significant unintended consequences for consumers, businesses, and American competitiveness.”

She added that “splitting off Chrome or Android would break them — and many other things.”

The most likely outcome, according to some legal experts, is that the court will ask Google to do away with certain exclusive agreements such that it has with Apple. The court may suggest that Google make it easier for users to try other search engines, experts told CNBC. However, a breakup seems less likely, the experts said.

In the second quarter, “Google Search & Other” accounted for $48.5 billion in revenue, or 57% of Alphabet’s total revenue. The company holds 90% of search market share.

In a separate antitrust case this week, a U.S. judge issued a permanent injunction that will force Google to offer alternatives to its Google Play store for downloading apps on Android phones.

A judge in September wrapped a trial for another antitrust case brought on by the DOJ — though this one homed in on Google’s ad tech business.

Thank you for referencing that article Red Badger.

"DOJ indicates it’s considering Google breakup following monopoly ruling [??? emphasis added]"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Not only is the word "monopoly" not found in the Constitution, monopoly power arguably a state power issue, but constitutional drafters effectively gave Congress the power to award inventors and authors with temporary exclusive rights to their creative work, effectively monopoly power imo, evidenced by the Congress's Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 power to make patent and copyright laws.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

So an expired patent is arguably the extent of Congress's power to terminate Congress's power to establish a temporary monopoly. Then do the states take over to regulate monopolies in the name of keeping prices low?

The wires seem to be crossed as usual, evidenced by worthless Congress letting non-popularly elected federal bureaucrats do their dirty regulatory for them, no express federal power to regulate monopolies, especially in a pivotal presidential election year.

Democratic and Republican Trump supporters need to support hopeful Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress that will support him in reviewing all federal laws ever made for reasonable compliance with the fed's constitutionally limited powers.

In fact, there are probably people in prison for breaking federal laws that the states have never given corrupt, misguided Congress the specific power to make. OUCH!

Again, since Congress and likewise renegade states have repeatedly proven that they are enemies of the people imo, it is now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" ALL (exceptions?) state and federal lawmakers and executives in November.

In fact, it's up to us Trump supporters to take the first MAJOR step in draining the swamp by supporting hopeful Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress, new state lawmakers too, not only so that he will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but will support him to quickly finish draining the swamp.

Finally, let's not allow the anti-Trump media try to fade our memories of what we witnessed on July 13.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.