Why the U.S. Department of Justice wants Google to divest its Chrome browser | Explained Premium

The U.S. DOJ, in its proposal, stressed that Google’s hold over the online search market had to be loosened.

The story so far: In August, U.S. Federal Judge Amit Mehta, in a tech industry-defining case, said Google had illegal monopoly power in the online search market. Following that landmark ruling, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on November 20, proposed large-scale remedies that go far beyond the Silicon Valley giant’s online search business. The proposals include possible divestment of Google’s Chrome and Android businesses.

The DOJ, in its proposal, stressed that Google’s hold over the online search market had to be loosened so there can be more competition. The federal government unit has argued for a mandatory sale of the Chrome browser, possible divestment of the Android mobile operating system, a five-year-long ban on entering the browser market, and a restriction on paying third parties like Apple to make Google the default search engine on their products.

Additionally, the DOJ has asked Google to provide publishers and content creators with the ability to block their data from being used to train AI models.

The DOJ suggested the formation of a ‘Technical Committee’ to monitor how Google is implementing the various remedies. The proposal raised concerns about whether Google could use its AI technologies or business strategies such as acquisitions, mergers, and partnerships to bypass these remedies.

Google will also have to make its search index available to rivals for a small fee and be more transparent about its search technologies. In essence, the regulator’s remedies are sweeping and intend on hitting where it hurts Google the most—its profits.

The DOJ wants to make it so that “Google is prohibited from owning not only a browser—following its divestiture of Chrome it may not reenter the browser market for five years—but also from owning or acquiring any investment or interest in any search or search text ad rival, search distributor, or rival query-based AI product or ads technology.”

Google strongly condemned the remedies as a “radical interventionist agenda.”