In a landmark antitrust case, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has outlined potential remedies to address Google’s monopoly in search and search advertising.
While “breaking up Google” is a popular headline phrase, the reality is more nuanced.
This article clarifies the DOJ’s proposals, Google’s response, and what it all could mean for the future of search.
The DOJ’s Case & Proposed Remedies
The DOJ’s argument centers on Google’s alleged abuse of its position in search and search advertising.
According to the court’s ruling in August, Google has illegally maintained monopolies in these areas for over a decade.
The DOJ’s proposed remedies aim to address four key areas:
1. Search Distribution & Revenue Sharing
Limiting or prohibiting Google’s exclusive search distribution deals
Ending or modifying revenue-sharing agreements that incentivize partners to use Google search
Potentially implementing choice screens to allow users to select their default search engine
2. Accumulation & Use of Data
Requiring Google to share its search index, data feeds, and models with competitors
Prohibiting Google from using data that can’t be shared due to privacy concerns
Reducing barriers for rivals to index and retain search data
3. Generation & Display of Search Results
Addressing Google’s leverage in emerging areas like AI-assisted search
Allowing websites to opt out of Google’s AI training or features
Ensuring fair access to web content for rival search engines
4. Advertising Scale & Monetization
Creating more competition in search advertising
Potentially requiring Google to license or syndicate its ad feed independently of search results
Increasing transparency in ad auctions and monetization
As it relates to data sharing. The DOJ filing states:
“Plaintiffs are considering remedies that will offset this advantage and strengthen competition by requiring, among other things, Google to make available, in whole or through an API, (1) the indexes, data, feeds, and models used for Google search, including those used in AI-assisted search features, and (2) Google search results, features, and ads, including the underlying ranking signals, especially on mobile.”
New: What The Google Antitrust Verdict Could Mean For The Future Of SEO
Google’s Response & Concerns
Google has vehemently opposed these proposals, arguing that they go beyond the scope of the case and could harm innovation and user experience.
The company’s key points include:
The proposals risk user privacy and security by forcing data sharing
Breaking up products like Chrome or Android could disrupt many businesses and developers
Changes to the ad market could make online ads less valuable for publishers and merchants
Restrictions on search promotion could create friction for users and harm Google’s partners
Google plans to appeal the ruling and argues that search competition is thriving, especially with the emergence of AI-powered alternatives.
Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, stated:
“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available.”
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post: