Following its antitrust victory, the U.S. Department of Justice is aiming to fundamentally reshape Google’s digital dominance by forcing the company to sell Chrome and restructure its market approach.
Catch up quick. The key proposals:
Divest Chrome browser.
End Apple partnership.
Share proprietary search data.
Ban new browser/search investments for 5-10 years.
By the numbers:
Chrome controls 66.68% global browser market share.
Google receives billions from Apple for default search status.
Google’s response
The company called this a “wildly overboard proposal” in a blog post published today, arguing the proposal would:
Compromise product quality.
Endanger user privacy.
Chill AI innovation.
Harm American tech leadership.
Google is positioning itself as a defender of innovation and consumer experience against government intervention.
Advertiser perspectives
We’re already seeing some reactions from advertisers to the news.
Navah Hopkins, brand evangelist of Optmyzr kicked off a conversation on LinkedIn. She noted Chrome’s search engine market share but then went on to share her views on the risk of information sharing, manipulation, and anyone else having the infrastructure that Chrome would need:
The DOJ are “setting up the US to be exactly like China with censorship if they move forward with this split”
“Anyone who would purchase Chrome would get easy access to the majority of minds.”
“If the browser suddenly played favorites with processing power or UI choices, there is a real risk content that isn’t flattering to the owner will be pushed down, while content that may or may not be accurate is given preferential treatment because it’s positive.”
“If bad actors manipulate Chrome in such a way that only approved content renders fast enough to be consumed (if at all), there’s real risk there.”
“Aside from the existing tech giants, there really isn’t anyone large enough to come up with the multi-billion dollars (if not more) needed to acquire Chrome. Should the government step in and seize it as a public utility, that puts us in a China adjacent environment.”
“Regardless of what happens to Chrome, there are other solutions out there. Whether we look to the rising trends in AI search, app-first experiences, or other browsers, there are paths for us to ensure our access to information isn’t blocked by bad actors. We all just need to be aware of how information gets to us and what (if any) biases exist in the information.”
There was a healthy response to these concerns. Some were worried about the negative outcome, some were just speculative and others were pragmatic, worrying about financial sustainability.
Concern about potential negative outcomes
Craig Graham, Google strategist, is worried about market fragmentation and predicts potential reliance on selling user data:
“The potential fragmentation of Google’s assets worry me as an advertiser. More fragmentation will lead to a more challenging advertising environment with fewer signals to push/pull us in positive directions.
“And in terms of who is even in a position to buy Chrome besides the US government, wouldn’t it just be another tech giant that would fill that void? I can’t imagine who else would have the capital or the know-how outside of Silicon Valley.”
Robert Brady, digital marketing specialist, is skeptical about Chrome’s future revenue model, and the unethical means it would need to gain earnings: