The DOJ still urges forced Chrome sale in antitrust trial –

So, when it emerged that Google met Justice Department execs, encouraging them to roll back earlier proposed remedies, including the divestiture of web browser Chrome, in its search antitrust trial, many assumed its political influence would win out. 

However, developments later in the week suggest those efforts — Bloomberg claimed last week that Google’s arguments centered on maintaining the tech hegemony of U.S. companies — proved fruitless in the case, where Judge Amit Mehta ruled Google’s search market tactics were illegal last year.  

Last week, DOJ lawyers filed a proposed final judgment, which (most critically) still requires Google to sell Chrome and aims to prohibit Google from entering into agreements that make its search engine the default on devices and browsers.

“Google shall not enter any agreement requiring Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to set Google Search as the Default Search Engine in the United States with respect to any proprietary Apple feature or functionality, including Siri and Spotlight,” reads the March 7 ruling. 

Updates

The updated proposals contain several key changes to the initial proposed final judgment in the Google antitrust trial (see bullet points below for details). 

• Clarification on prohibited conduct: Language regarding Google’s economic incentives has been refined in response to court requests for better clarity.
• AI investments notification: Instead of a full prohibition on Google investing in rivals in search, search text ads, AI, or ad technology, the revised judgment now requires pre-investment or transaction notification.
• Android divestiture: The DOJ no longer requires a divestiture at the outset, but it still argues for the forced sale of Android if Google is found to be leveraging it unfairly.
• Syndication and data access: Data sharing remedies remain substantively unchanged but now contain additional detail to address prior concerns over clarity.
• Search text ads: The DOJ has dropped the requirement that Google price search text ads at marginal cost and the cap on competitors syndicating 25% or less of their search text ads.

These updates reflect feedback from the court and a shift in approach to ensure compliance while addressing concerns over the vagueness of the earlier proposals. 

In an earlier December filing, Google argued that third-party browser providers, handset manufacturers, and wireless providers, such as Apple, Samsung, or Verizon, should be free to strike default agreements. Google’s proposed plan ensures compliance while minimizing government oversight and protecting privacy and innovation, according to its vp of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland.

Judge Mehta will rule on how Google must change its practices following hearings scheduled for later this month, although, Google has said it will appeal the initial verdict of the antitrust trial.

In a separate trial, the DOJ and Google await Judge Leonie Brinkema’s verdict on the legality of Google’s ad tech operations. A decision is expected within weeks if not days. The DOJ is similarly seeking a breakup of the online advertising giant in this case.