Federal regulators and some states are moving closer to their quest of breaking up Google.

As we reported last month, a federal court found that Google is a monopoly in the search engine market. Never mind that there is currently significant competition in the search market. For example, when looking to make dinner reservations, you are likely to go to OpenTable or Yelp first to book a table at a restaurant nearby. There are now many ratings, booking, shopping, and social media websites that consumers turn to for the answers or information they seek. Google is just one. 

Now, antitrust cops have put forward proposed fixes they believe would lead to more competition in the search market. However, the antitrust agenda in Washington over the past few years has prioritized hobbling Big Tech companies as punishment for successfully growing large or for being political foes, not because of demonstrated harm to consumers. The proposed remedies reflect that view.

In this case, the government’s top priority is to force Google to give up Chrome. The question regular Americans should ask: will we be better off or worse?

Tech experts warn that while regulators are trying to take down Big Tech, consumers and small businesses may pay the price for their efforts through higher prices, data security risks, and fewer tools to get business done. 

What Happened

In a recent court filing, the Department of Justice proposed:

  • Prohibiting Google from entering into contracts that preinstall Google Search on browsers and devices.
  • Forcing Google to sell off its Chrome browser.
  • Preventing investments in competitors’ search-ad AI technology.
  • Forcing Google to make its search index available to rivals for a small fee.
  • Forcing Google to provide advertisers with more visibility into its data.

The DOJ also left the door open for the court to force Google to divest Android.

Not surprisingly, Google blasted these fixes as a “radical interventionist agenda” and “wildly overbroad.” Concerningly, Google explained that these remedies would “break a range of Google products — even beyond Search — that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives.” This caught our attention.

Kent Walker, the Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer, explained that the fixes would:

  • Endanger the security and privacy of millions of Americans and undermine the quality of products people love.
  • Require disclosure to unknown foreign and domestic companies of not just Google’s innovations and results, but… Americans’ personal search queries.
  • Chill Google’s investment in artificial intelligence.
  • Hurt innovative services, like Mozilla’s Firefox, whose businesses depend on charging Google for search placement.

In addition, regulators want to empower technocrats in Washington with greater micromanagement over Google’s search and technology.

Plus, state attorneys general who joined the lawsuit want Google to fund a national ad campaign that would encourage users to use other browsers. Sounds like a bridge too far.

What others are saying

Ad buyers and executives largely view these remedies negatively and point to how they would hamper small businesses. 

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board opined:

How badly does the Biden Administration want to punish Google? So much that the Justice Department’s antitrust cops are now asking a federal court to hobble the search giant, even though their proposals would hurt consumers and could benefit China. 

Executives at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a technology policy think tank, noted:

These proposed remedies are inappropriate, shortsighted, and entirely unrelated to addressing the alleged behavior, and courts should ultimately reject them. Rather than learn the lessons of history associated with its disastrous decision to break up AT&T, the DOJ has again decided to weaponize antitrust policy against U.S. innovation and competitiveness. 

Many others, including members of Congress, view the DOJ’s proposals as a punishment for American innovation and a giveaway to our Chinese or foreign rivals.

Jeffery Westling at the American Action Forum took a more balanced approach and still found that the remedies reached beyond the actual harm the court pointed to:

While some of the remedies recommended by the DOJ could promote competition, much of the agency’s proposal, especially the proposed structural remedies, go well beyond the conduct at issue and could ultimately harm competition… The court has the authority to impose remedies to restore competition and prevent future harm, but in doing so, it should ensure that the remedies are actually designed to restore competition and not to simply punish Google for being successful. 

Similarly, Alex Moore, executive director of Open Web Advocacy, told The Register

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.

Federal District Judge Amit Mehta will determine what remedies should follow, and Google is expected to mount vigorous appeals. It may take years for this case to be resolved.

The chilling message being sent directly to businesses and indirectly to the American people is that select big companies are inherently bad because of their size and should be punished for their success—even if consumers are the ones who will suffer the consequences.