Google balks at 'staggering' US call for Chrome sell-off

The US Department of Justice is demanding that Google sells its web browser Chrome, shares data and search results with rivals and possibly even flogs off its Android operating system to stop the tech giant from maintaining its monopoly in online search.

In a court filing, Government lawyers also recommended that District Judge Amit Mehta force the firm to stop entering into contracts with companies – including Apple and Samsung – that make its search engine the default on many smartphones and browsers.

The proposed measures, branded “staggering” by Google parent Alphabet, are part of a landmark case in Washington, which has the potential to turn the online advertising market on its head.

The measures, which stem from a ruling in August, would be in place for up to 10 years, enforced through a court-appointed committee to remedy what the Judge Mehta deemed an illegal monopoly in search and related advertising in the US, where Google processes 90% of searches.

The government lawyers wrote: “Restoring competition to the markets for general search and search text advertising as they exist today will require reactivating the competitive process that Google has long stifled.”

In response, Google’s president of global affairs Kent Walker said that the DOJ has chosen to push “a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership”.

He added: “[The] DOJ’s wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court’s decision. It would break a range of Google products – even beyond Search – that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives.”

It is not clear how the proposals would affect the European market, but Chrome is the world’s most widely used web browser and is a pillar of Google’s business, providing user information that helps the company target ads more effectively and profitably.

Google has claimed that forcing it to sell off Chrome and Android, which are built on open source code and are free, would harm companies that have built upon them to develop their own products.

The proposals would bar Google from requiring devices that run on Android to include its search or AI products.

Google now has the chance to present its own proposals by December 20.

In response, Mediaocean chief marketing officer Aaron Goldman said: “Search is the cornerstone of Google’s ecosystem and Chrome is a key source of search traffic. Chrome also serves as a critical source of third-party cookies used by advertisers for targeting their audiences. Any changes to Chrome ownership would have an impact on search distribution and the future of cookie deprecation.

“While it’s too soon to know what those changes may be, an independent Chrome would need to find ways to monetise including striking search distribution deals and extending the shelf-life of cookies for use in ad targeting.

“There are also downstream impacts to consider on Google’s adtech business which draws much of its strength from search and browser data. Advertisers would be wise to consider independent alternatives when it comes to ad serving to future-proof their businesses.”

Emarketer senior analyst Evelyn Mitchell-Wolf added: “I’m sceptical a forced divestiture will end up materialising, but if it does, Google will lose one of the most powerful moats around its advertising business.

“Search behaviours are a function of convenience first, trust and experience second. If users are presented with some kind of search engine choice screen at browser set-up, there’s a high likelihood most will choose Google out of familiarity. But if Chrome is spun off and adopts another search engine as its default, query volume will shift to that default platform and will stay there as long as the search experience doesn’t meaningfully deteriorate. This assumes Chrome retains its most popular features and continues innovating so it keeps its dominant market share. But the dynamic would hold for any browser that replaces Google as its default search engine.

“Potential buyers for Chrome are very few. It’s likely that any company with deep enough pockets to afford Chrome is already under antitrust scrutiny. At the moment, it’s hard to get a handle on how antitrust strategy will change under the incoming administration, but if I had to speculate, my inclination is to look at US-based AI players. Sourcing the funds to purchase Chrome would be a challenge, but such a merger could conceivably be approved by the government as a way to prioritise AI innovation and US posturing around AI on the global stage.”