The US Department of Justice is considering asking a federal judge to force tech giant Google to sell parts of its business in order to eliminate its online search monopoly.
In a late court filing, US federal prosecutors also said the judge could ask the court to open the underlying data Google uses to power its ubiquitous search engine and artificial intelligence products to competitors.
Competition enforcers wrote in the court papers: “For more than a decade, Google has controlled the most popular distribution channels, leaving rivals with little to no incentive to compete for users.
“Fully remedying these harms requires not only ending Google’s control of distribution today, but also ensuring Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow.”
To that end, the department said it is considering asking for structural changes to stop Google from leveraging products such as its Chrome browser, Android operating system, AI products or app store to benefit its search business.
Prosecutors also seem to centre on Google’s default search agreements in the papers and said any remedy proposals would seek to limit or ban these deals.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in response to the filing that the Department of Justice was “already signalling requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues” in this case.
She added: “Government over-reach in a fast-moving industry may have negative unintended consequences for American innovation and America’s consumers.”
US district judge Amit Mehta ruled in August that Google’s search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation.
He has outlined a timeline for a trial on the proposed remedies next spring and plans to issue a decision by August 2025.
Google has already said it plans to appeal Judge Mehta’s ruling, but the tech giant must wait until he finalises a remedy before doing so.
The appeals process could take as long as five years, predicts George Hay, a law professor at Cornell University who was the chief economist for the Justice Department’s antitrust division for most of the 1970s.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here