The Biden-Harris administration escalated its attack on Google last week, moving into a new phase of its antitrust case against the American tech innovator. As part of this process, the Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted its “remedy framework,” laying out its vision for what penalties Google should face. The proposed “remedies” are all over the map, ranging from scaling down Google’s development of artificial intelligence (AI), to mandated data sharing, and even suggesting a breakup. While polling indicates more regulation of the tech giant would be popular with about half of the U.S. population, still most think a breakup is unrealistic and could hurt more than it helps. In the end, these ideas would be a disaster for American consumers and undermine the U.S.’s global technological leadership.
Antitrust is law enforcement, and in no other law enforcement scenario would we tolerate the accused being punished for crimes that they have not been convicted of. Federal Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling against Google in August said nothing about advertisements, AI, or any of the other wide-raging machinations within the DOJ’s document. The government is engaging in lawfare against an American company after failing to make its case effectively in court. That’s the definition of government overreach.
The agency’s deliberate targeting of Google’s development and adoption of AI tools is deeply troubling. While the DOJ admits that AI is not yet a substitute for search, its potential significance is apparently sufficient to justify government interference.
Kneecapping Google’s AI work is a terrible idea. For starters, it’s hard to ignore the various struggles Google has had in the development of its own AI tools. Additionally, taking Google off the field will just empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and DOJ to go after other AI companies for monopoly behavior, though you can be sure the government won’t mention in its filings that it was the government who took out these companies’ competitors.
America is in a global AI race and while it is the current leader of the pack, that status shouldn’t be taken for granted. Through its AI Act, the European Union has fumbled the ball on emerging tech policy, choosing overregulation over creating conditions for innovation. However, countries like China, which is investing heavily in supercomputers, and the United Arab Emirates, which has one of the largest open-source Large Language Models (LLM) in the world rivaling the top U.S. companies, are sprinting alongside us attempting to close that gap.
AI is the technology that will help define global leadership over the next century, and the world will look much different if the U.S. isn’t leading the way. China’s vision for AI is a future where the state controls the dissemination of information through its AI products, supporting and exporting the values of the CCP around the globe. Let’s not take measures that make it that much easier for the CCP to impose its vision for AI leadership. The DOJ’s proposal to kneecap America’s domestic AI development capabilities by breaking up a company that’s investing more than $100 billion in AI technology is woefully shortsighted.
If it weren't bad enough that DOJ's proposed "remedies" would gift the AI race to China, it seems the agency now also wants to attack consumers directly by trying to get Google to share customer data — without users' consent. American antitrust law is governed by the “consumer welfare standard,” the idea that business activity is anti-competitive when it hurts everyday consumers. While that raises major questions about the court’s ruling in Google’s case, it raises even bigger questions as to why the government is proposing Google be forced to share its customers’ data — again, without their consent — to each of its competitors. The DOJ’s framework is an example of how the Biden-Harris administration cares more about propping up competitors than helping consumers.
No American is begging for their data to be less secure — quite the opposite. And for all the fear-mongering over data use and collection, it represents a contract. The government shouldn’t be given permission to ignore that agreement and force a company to ship your personal data around the globe in the name of “competition.” Consumers want more privacy and data security, and companies like Google know best how to deliver that to their customers without being excoriated by their government.
The DOJ's misguided proposals not only fail to benefit consumers but also risk undermining America's leadership in critical technologies like AI. Rather than fostering competition and innovation, these measures threaten to stifle the very industries driving global tech progress. Worse, the “remedies” reach beyond the scope of the court’s ruling, imposing restrictions that don’t address the court’s core antitrust concerns but do create new hurdles for businesses striving to innovate. By pushing unnecessary and ill-considered measures, DOJ risks harming the competitive landscape it seeks to protect and leaving consumers worse off.
