Google Pushes Back on DOJ’s Plan to Force Sale of Chrome Browser

[priyasng]

Alphabet Inc.’s Google has criticized the U.S. Justice Department's (DOJ) proposal to force the company to sell its popular Chrome web browser, calling the plan “extreme” and inconsistent with legal precedent. In a court filing on Friday, Google urged a federal judge to carefully consider the broader implications of such a move, warning that it could stifle innovation and deter future investment in technology.

Google’s Counter to DOJ’s Proposal
The DOJ, alongside several states, has requested U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to impose sweeping changes on Google’s business practices to boost competition in the online search market. These changes include the sale of Chrome and modifications to Google’s agreements with browsers, device manufacturers, and telecom carriers.
Google, however, argued that the proposed remedies are disproportionate to the conduct deemed illegal by the court. Judge Mehta had earlier ruled that Google violated antitrust laws by entering into exclusive agreements with companies like Apple to make Google the default search engine on their platforms. Google contends that these agreements, not the ownership of Chrome, are the crux of the issue.
“Extreme remedies are discouraged,” Google said in its filing. The company emphasized that any corrective measures should align with the nature of the violations, rather than imposing broader, unrelated changes.

Proposed Alternative Remedies

To address the DOJ’s concerns, Google suggested remedies that it believes would foster competition without requiring the sale of Chrome. In a blog post, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, outlined the company's proposal:

• Freedom for Competing Browsers: Competing browsers, such as Apple’s Safari, should be free to partner with any search engine that suits their users’ needs.
• Revenue Sharing: Google would continue splitting revenue with competing browsers.
• Multiple Defaults: Device makers should have the option to preload multiple search engines and browsers on their devices.
• No Bundling Requirements: Manufacturers would not be obligated to include Chrome or Google Search to gain access to other Google apps.

These measures, Google argued, would address concerns about anti-competitive behavior while allowing competitors to thrive without drastic structural changes.

Google’s Broader Defense

Google’s filing on Friday marks its first formal response since Judge Mehta’s initial ruling earlier this year. While Google has indicated plans to appeal the decision, it cannot do so until the case concludes.
In the meantime, Google has sought to reassure regulators and the public that its innovations, including those in artificial intelligence and search algorithms, are not inherently anti-competitive. “If DOJ felt that Google investing in Chrome, or our development of AI, or the way we crawl the web, or develop our algorithms, were at all anticompetitive, it could have filed those cases. It did not,” Mulholland wrote.

What’s Next?

Judge Mehta has scheduled proceedings in April 2025 to determine appropriate remedies for Google’s antitrust violations. A final decision is expected by August 2025. As the legal battle continues, the outcome could significantly reshape the competitive landscape of the online search and advertising industries.
This case highlights the tension between fostering innovation and ensuring fair competition, with Google arguing that overly aggressive measures could undermine the technological advancements that benefit users worldwide.