At the end of the Biden Administration the U.S. Justice Department submitted its proposed remedy for its antitrust case against Google. The submission is in response to Federal Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling that Google had used its position as the world’s most popular search engine to entrench its monopoly. Amongst Google’s “crimes” were paying Apple and other device manufacturers to have Google installed as the default browser on their devices. The Justice Department’s case assumes that manufactures would have no incentive besides getting a payment from Google to install the world’s most popular browser.
Having Google preinstalled is a convenience for most consumers. It is not a burden for those who prefer to use another browser since it only takes a few seconds for a user to change their default browser. The reason most consumers don’t is likely because they are satisfied with Google. Google may be the dominant search engine, but consumers have numerous alternatives in the General Search Engine (GSE) market to choose from including Firefox, Safari, Reddit, and Chat GPT.
Consumers can also go to specialized sites such as Web MD to look for doctors, and Expedia for travel information. Consumers can also search for goods on Amazon. In fact, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan, in her 2017 law review article, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” wrote that “close to one half of online buyers use Amazon.” Since 2018, Google has had to offer a “choice screen” on Android devices sold in Europe. This button allows users to select their default browsers. If the government was correct that the only reason Google was the number one browser in America was because most electronic devices have Google installed as the default browser—then Google would have lost market share in Europe—not have a 92% share of the EU browser market.
Despite these weak claims against Google, the Biden Justice Department still wanted Google to sell its popular Google Chrome browser on the grounds that Chrome’s popularity helps “fortify Google’s dominance.” Google may also be forced to sell its Android operating system if it is found to be using Android to “preference” other Google products.
Google Chrome comprises approximately 57% of the browser market, yet Google comprises 89% of the search engine market. This means that many consumers access the Google search engine through other browsers. Therefore, Google would continue to dominate the search engine market even if they had to sell Chrome. Forbidding Google from “preferencing” their products on Android would deprive Android users of having a variety of Google’s popular apps, such as Google Maps and Google Play, pre-installed on their devices at no charge. Many Android users would still seek out those Google apps—but they would have to spend time downloading them onto their phones.
One of the Biden Administration’s most outrageous demands is that Google be required to license the search index data it collects to rival search engines. Google’s methods of collecting and saving search index data are the key to its success. This is the equivalent of forcing Coke to give their formula to RC Cola. This proposal would also make personal data vulnerable to hackers.
The Justice Department claimed its proposed remedies would help smaller search engines. However, Mozilla, creator of the Firefox browser, says that forbidding browsers from making deals to be installed as the default browser on electronic devices will harm smaller browsers that rely on these agreements for the majority of their revenues.
Fortunately, even if Judge Mehta approves the Biden Administration’s recommended remedy—both the verdict and the remedy must still survive the appeals process. In addition, with new leadership at the Justice Department change is now possible. While President Trump is no fan of big tech—and the case against Google was initially brought in during his first term—the President has recently stated that breaking up Google could be the death of the company and suggested he would prefer a more reasonable remedy.
This does not mean Trump’s Justice Department will not seek to punish Google for the “crime“ of being successful—it just means it will not seek the death penalty for Google. Whatever punishment Google receives—it is likely to harm smaller internet companies and consumers. These remedies will also make the tech industry less innovative. The only beneficiaries of this lawsuit are American bureaucrats, politicians, and Chinese tech companies.
