It’s no secret that the Justice Department considers Google to be a monopolist and would like to force Google to spin-off Chrome, the Google Play Store, and maybe even Android. Google, as you might imagine, would prefer to satisfy the DOJ by taking smaller measures. The Alphabet unit also plans to appeal the ruling made last August in DC District Court by Judge Amit Mehta who wrote, “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”In a blog post written by Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company published a list of remedies it proposes to the DOJ to satisfy the regulatory agency. Before she gets to the list, Mulholland discusses the disconnect between the DOJ’s radical slicing and dicing of Google compared to what the court ‘s decision covered which was the agreements Google has to distribute search to its partners. As she points out, the government did not file cases charging Google with anti-competitive behavior related to Chrome, its AI algorithms, or other aspects of Google’s business.
Mulholland says that the DOJ’s proposal would hurt U.S. citizens, impact America’s lead in global tech, and force the company to share users’ private search queries with foreign and domestic companies that compete with Google. She rightfully claims that the DOJ’s approach would end up disrupting Google’s ability to improve its products through innovation. Google’s proposals do not come close to the government’s desire to break up the company.
“We don’t propose these changes lightly. They would come at a cost to our partners by regulating how they must go about picking the best search engine for their customers. And they would impose burdensome restrictions and oversight over contracts that have reduced prices for devices and supported innovation in rival browsers, both of which have been good for consumers. But we believe that they fully address the Court’s findings, and do so without putting Americans’ privacy and security at risk or harming America’s global technology leadership.”-Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
Pointing out that the Court said that browser companies like Apple and Mozilla “occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior,” Google proposes that browser companies be allowed to continue to offer Google Search to their customers and generate revenue for these companies through this partnership. But the agreement would allow for different default search engines for different platforms.
If the government gets its way, Google might have to spin off Chrome. | Image credit-PhoneArena
For example, there would be multiple default agreements across different platforms and different browsing modes. With this in mind, the iPhone and the iPad would each get their own default search engine. And following the Court’s decision that under antitrust law a 12-month agreement would be considered reasonable, search engine deals with Google’s partners would last for one year.
Google also proposes giving device makers more flexibility in preloading multiple search engines on Android devices and allowing them to preload any Google app regardless of whether they decide to preinstall Search or Chrome on their Android products. Lee-Anne writes that this will give rivals such as Microsoft more opportunities to make deals with device makers to preinstall their apps.
The company also says that it will create “a robust mechanism” to ensure that it complies with the Court’s order without giving the government excessive power over how consumers create their online experiences.
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings