I may not have mentioned this yet (I’m pretty sure I mentioned it in one of my first PC Gamer articles) but I have a law degree. That has made me love the minutia of the legal system but also keenly aware of how complicated and drawn out it can all get. Though the United States’ enforcement of anti-trust principles as of late is likely better for the consumer and broader market, the latest hearing isn’t the end of the case.
United States v. Google LLC (1:20-cv-03010) began proceedings in October 2020 and was decided in August of this year. This is a different case from the confusingly titled United States v. Google LLC (1:23-cv-00108), which started in 2023, and had its closing arguments in November 2024.
The latter case is specifically about Google’s control and alleged monopoly over its advertising, whereas the former is about its search engine. Through deals with companies like Apple to be the default search engine on the iPhone and Google’s ownership of the popular mobile OS Android, Google has become the search engine giant it is today.
There’s a reason why it’s a popular joke to jokingly insult the ‘five users of Bing’ or how behind the market Microsoft’s Edge is. That browser is known as the app you use to get Chrome, then never touch it again. In fact, Windows periodically sends reminders that ‘you can just use Edge, you know?’ and yet many don’t. I write this typing on Google Docs, through Google Chrome, so maybe I’m part of the problem.
Fundamentally, most browsers aren’t too dissimilar from each other—yet Chrome holds almost 70% of the market share on a consistent basis. This lawsuit took aim at the browser, and after years of deliberation, the DOJ has proposed that Google be forced to sell Chrome, alongside a few other efforts to stop Google from further monopolising the market.
Judge Amit Mehta, who presides over the case, has ruled that Google acted illegally to develop and maintain its monopoly. As well as advising that Google sell Chrome, the DOJ proposed it be barred from reentering agreements like those that made it the default web browser, whilst also recommending it share its data with rivals.
It’s also been recommended that Google either sell off Android or avoid making Google the default option on Android devices. The DOJ makes these recommendations to Judge Mehta, where Judge Mehta can mediate and come to an agreement.
This all seems like great advice to stop a company that has acted in a way that the court deems to be monopolistic. Controlling such a huge part of the market not only discourages others from entering but can push those in the market out. Once a company has a big enough control over a resource, like all the digital real estate Chrome has, it can essentially make its own rules.
Outside of court orders like this, there aren’t ways to hold huge corporate entities accountable when they are acting against the interests of their users. If Chrome, Edge, Opera, and more were equally viable choices, you could afford to swap from one to the other if you didn’t like any decisions made.
Of course, selling Chrome won’t shrink its user base overnight. Though the other actions recommended by the DOJ would help with that too, it’s important to note that the litigation against Google is more than just a singular case, it’s one of multiple antitrust suits levelled against the company in the last few years.
The worry isn’t specifically and exclusively about Chrome, but all the actions made to keep it where it is today. Google as a company doesn’t appear to be trusted to handle something like Chrome in legal ways.
Published on November 21, just a single day after the DOJ proposed Google sell Chrome, Kent Walker, the global affairs and chief legal officers of Google and Alphabet (Google’s parent company), took to the Google Blog to declare that this decision “would hurt consumers”.This piece makes the argument that the proposal would endanger the security of users by undermining the quality of the services and disclosing Google’s research to “foreign and domestic companies”.
It also argued that Google’s investment into AI would be chilled by this decision, effectively warning that Google’s own advancement of AI would be held back as a result.
The blog also argues that it would not only hurt casual consumers’ access to Google search but would hurt companies reliant on Google, like Firefox. Finally, it argues this is a slippery slope and an overreach of the government on “your online experience”.
None of these arguments, on their face, are necessarily wrong—but I’d argue they’re lacking a little in nuance. Selling off such a huge entity could indeed leave consumers open to bad practices, both technically and ethically, from the potential buyer. It is also true that Google’s research into the likes of Google Gemini would make less sense without owning the broader ecosystem. Also, with so many browsers being based on Chromium, Google’s open-source web browsing project, there’s a chance for security or quality problems as a result.
However, that’s also part of what the current process in the lawsuit is for. Judge Mehta has argued Google acted illegally and Google does have the chance to appeal, which it has been suggested it will do. If it fails to file as such, a further trial will be held in April next year to come up with an answer to remedy the alleged wrongdoing.
In this case, Google’s arguments will be heard and an answer will be found. Many of the arguments brought forward by Google could be remedied through further litigation and aren’t themselves arguments against the suit. It’s important to remember that the DOJ’s recommendation isn’t law, it’s merely a suggestion based on the facts of the case, and other remedies can be found.
Though we have many arguments and a decision, this case is anything but final and it’s hard to have too concrete an understanding until a later date. Though the breaking up of parts of Google seems to have been necessary for some time as argued by Judge Mehta, the specifics of how that will happen will dictate how successful the potential selling would be.
Chrome is a major part of much of how Google currently operates and measures will need to be taken to not lose many fundamental parts of the internet seemingly overnight. A heavy-handed approach was needed for much of the court case to even bring this suit against Google but a finer touch is needed for those specifics. Though we won’t understand how fine that is for some time.