Accessibility help Skip to navigation Skip to content Skip to footer
Open side navigation menu Open search bar
Subscribe Sign In
Google LLC
Add to myFT
US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case
Justice department could seek ‘structural remedies’ such as forced product sales after judge’s ruling of illegal monopoly in search
 Jonathan Kanter, the top US antitrust enforcer, left, and Google chief Sundar Pichai © FT montage/Bloomberg
current progress 91%
Stefania Palma in Washington and Stephen Morris in San Francisco
41 minutes ago
8Print this page
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The US government is considering asking a district judge to break up Google for its antitrust violations in online search, in what would mark federal prosecutors’ boldest effort yet to rein in one of the world’s most powerful tech companies.
The US Department of Justice is “considering behavioural and structural remedies” that would prevent Google from using products such as the Chrome browser, Play app store and Android operating system to give its search engine an edge over competitors or new entrants, according to a court document filed on Tuesday.
Prosecutors could also seek to force Google to share users’ search data with rivals and restrict its ability to use search results to train new generative artificial intelligence models and products.
“For more than a decade, Google has controlled the most popular distribution channels, leaving rivals with little-to-no incentive to compete for users,” the DoJ said. “Fully remedying these harms requires not only ending Google’s control of distribution today, but also ensuring Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow.”
The DoJ identified four areas that its remedies framework needed to address: search distribution and revenue sharing; generation and display of search results; advertising scale and monetisation; and gathering and use of data.
Google hit back at the proposals, calling them “radical and sweeping”, beyond the scope of the legal issues in the case and a threat to “consumers, businesses and American competitiveness”.
Shares of parent company Alphabet were little changed in after-hours trading and have risen 19 per cent this year to give it a market value of $2tn, the fourth largest for a listed company in the world.
The DoJ’s 32-page filing is its initial remedy proposal, which is subject to change. It comes after Amit Mehta, the judge presiding over the case, in August labelled Google a “monopolist” when he ruled that the company had spent tens of billions of dollars on exclusive deals to maintain an illegal dominance over search.
Tuesday’s filing advances the trial’s second phase, in which Mehta will determine the remedies to be imposed on Google.
The DoJ and Google are set to file their proposed final judgments and witness lists on November 20 and December 20, respectively. Mehta has set hearings for the remedy requests in April and has said he aims to hand down a decision by August 2025. Google has vowed to appeal against the decision as far as the US Supreme Court, which could take years longer.
In addition to potential spin-offs, prosecutors said remedies could include banning the exclusive contracts at the heart of the case — in particular the $20bn that Google pays Apple each year to be its default search engine — as well as imposing “non-discrimination” measures on Google products such as its Android operating system and Play app store.
The DoJ is also considering requiring Google to share its vast trove of data gathered to improve search ranking models, indices and advertising algorithms, which prosecutors argue was accumulated unlawfully.
To address any data privacy concerns that result, Google could be “prohibit[ed] from using or retaining data that cannot be effectively shared with others”.
The DoJ also recognised the disruptive impact that AI would have on online search. Prosecutors are concerned that Google will “leverage its monopoly power” to feed its AI features and want websites to be able to opt out of being used to train Google’s AI models or inclusion in its AI-generated summaries.
Finally, the filing said Google’s dominance over search text ads needed to be addressed by lowering barriers to would-be rivals or licensing its ad feed to others, independently from search results.
The Google case could potentially be the biggest antitrust victory for the DoJ since a judge ordered the break-up of Microsoft 24 years ago for illegally squashing competition.
However, that ruling was overturned on appeal a year later, making the Google lawsuit a second chance for the DoJ to fundamentally dismantle a Big Tech company’s dominance of a key sector.
Recommended
Lex Google LLC
Google break-up reads like antitrust fan-fiction Premium content
2 hours ago
The remedy trial’s outcome will be a critical test for Jonathan Kanter, who inherited the case and has ushered in a tougher enforcement policy in the past three years as head of the DoJ’s antitrust unit.
Kanter has sued Apple and has a second case against Google’s ad tech business in progress. Big Tech critic Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission, has challenged Amazon and Meta in separate cases.
The filing comes close on the heels of other legal defeats for Alphabet. A California judge on Monday ordered the company to open its Android operating system to rivals, allowing them to create their own app marketplaces and payment systems to compete with Google Play. Google said it would appeal against the verdict.
That judgment was the result of a lawsuit from Epic, maker of the popular video game Fortnite, which argued that Google had suppressed competition in Android apps and used its monopoly to charge excessive fees.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024. All rights reserved.
Reuse this content(opens in new window)(opens a new window) CommentsJump to comments section
Latest on Google LLC
Follow the topics in this article
Comments
Commenting is only available to readers with an FT subscription
Please login or subscribe to join the conversation.
Sort by
NewestOldestMost repliesMost Recommended
covertaction
8 minutes ago
Good. AI ruined Google.
It has become annoying. Any company that makes their products worse in order to fleece their customers deserves the same.
Share
Report
PedroSnapChess
23 minutes ago
About time. Then, let’s move onto Meta, apple, Microsoft and Amazon.
These gatekeepers have squatted on the biggest monopolies in history and are not going to give that up without an incredible squeal.
Share
Report
Argus
23 minutes ago
(Edited)
Is there a case to be made that Google is substantially more valuable broken up than held together? YouTube huge value. Android is the MSFT windows for phones. Cloud. Maps. Gmail. A AI spin off to rival ChatGPT. Plus all the bloated spending and off target moon shots it would avoid in the future.
Maybe shareholders should be teaming up with government to push its break up.
Thoughts from informed readers welcome.
Share
Report
Melon Duks
14 minutes ago
(Edited)
In reply to Argus
This is web 1.0 thinking. User data is at the very core of the business, collected by and shared across services. Combine this with AI, you get incredible value for the users across the services for a personalized experience AND of course incredible knowledge to influence them through razor sharp precision marketing.
As it was said in the 2000s, Google will know you better than yourself.
This is what is at stake here. Huge risk for shareholders.
Share
Report
Dubh
5 minutes ago
In reply to Melon Duks
incredible value for the users? pure speculation by those who can only see the world as it is, not as it could be.
Share
Report
Show More Replies
An observer
28 minutes ago
Baby-Bells…
Share
Report
Yessey
28 minutes ago
(Edited)
Android can have other app stores and install apps from other sources easily. Samsung has their own app store for example. I didn't think that was a problem? Exclusivity deals are, and I assume the dominance of their position in combination is the issue
Share
Report
Zac Rogers
28 minutes ago
Markets are ill-informed if they are not pricing-in Kanter’s chances of pulling this off.
Share
Report
Top of commentsTop of page
Useful links
Support
View Site Tips Help Centre Contact Us About Us Accessibility myFT Tour Careers
Legal & Privacy
Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Manage Cookies Copyright Slavery Statement & Policies
Services
Share News Tips Securely Individual Subscriptions 4-b62d-cb33-4c278e6fdf61&cpccampaign=B2B_link_ft.com_footer]Professional Subscriptions Republishing Executive Job Search Advertise with the FT Follow the FT on X FT Channels FT Schools
Tools
Portfolio FT App FT Digital Edition FT Edit Alerts Hub Business School Rankings Subscription Manager News feed Newsletters Currency Converter
Community & Events
FT Live Events FT Forums Board Director Programme
More from the FT Group
Markets data delayed by at least 15 minutes. © THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD 2024. FT and ‘Financial Times’ are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
The Financial Times and its journalism are subject to a self-regulation regime under the FT Editorial Code of Practice.
 |
