US government: Google should have to sell Chrome – and Android too, actually

The US Department of Justice actually wants to force Google to sell the Chrome browser and also considers it necessary to force it to sell the Android mobile operating system. This is the result of an application that has now become public at the Federal District Court in Washington D.C., which has ruled at the instigation of the government that Google is abusing its market power in favor of its search engine business. In addition to these two particularly radical countermeasures, the US government is also calling for a ban on contracts with third parties that exclude competitors. This would not only affect Apple, but also Mozilla, for example. The main features of the proposal had become known in advance.

Sale of Android as an option

The application that has now been submitted also states that the court should determine that Google may not give preference to its own search engine over other products from the company. The US government is concerned with YouTube and the AI technology Gemini, for example. Furthermore, Google should be obliged to make its own search index available to competitors at marginal or marginal costs. Google should also be prohibited from stifling emerging competition through takeovers, the acquisition of shares or partnerships. For advertisers, the US government is calling for Google to commit to greater transparency.

Overall, it is clear from the application that the US government sees no alternative to splitting off Chrome. With the browser, the group has consolidated its dominance and therefore there is no way around a sale. The plaintiffs are demanding a say in the potential buyer. In addition, Google should be prohibited from returning to the browser market for five years. For Android, on the other hand, they see two options, with the obligation to sell being only the first and "most uncomplicated solution". Otherwise, comprehensive supervision would have to ensure that Android is not misused to favor Google search. Should this not work, a sales obligation would still be an option.

Uncertainty about Trump's plans

The ruling on Google's monopoly position was made as part of a court case that was initiated under Donald Trump. According to the ruling, Google has a monopoly on general search engines and in the sub-market of text advertising on general search engines. This alone would not be illegal, but according to the court, Google has illegally exploited these monopolies to hinder competition. The next step is to consider the possible consequences, and Google will put up determined resistance and may make its own proposals in December as to how the anti-competitive behavior can be remedied.

In view of the political situation in the USA, however, it remains to be seen how the process will continue. A decision on the consequences will not be made until next summer, by which time Donald Trump will be back in office as US President. His administration's course in the proceedings could be very different; during the election campaign, he once expressed skepticism about breaking up Google. That would help China, he argued. Instead, he wanted more fairness in search results. Google has now criticized that the measures would worsen the quality of the products and jeopardize the security of user data. Firefox would also suffer damage. Google's money is an important source of income for Mozilla.

(mho)