Roughly 87% of Americans use Google for online searches — not because they have to, but because they want to. The Department of Justice (DOJ)’s latest antitrust campaign risks taking away that choice in the name of “competition.”
The DOJ and eleven state attorneys general brought a significant antitrust case against Google in October 2020, focusing on the company's default search agreements. They argued that Google illegally monopolized their search engine and dwindled competition from third-party services since 2010, particularly on Android and Apple products. After several months at trial, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google had unlawfully maintained market control and manipulated the landscape to empower its general search and search advertising markets. The remedies trial, which began on April 21, may consider DOJ recommendations that Google sell its famous Chrome browser and Android operating system, or share company data with rivals for the next decade.
These suggestions may fall under the guise of promoting freer, fairer markets, but they punish success. The solutions proposed aren’t antitrust, but threaten consumer well-being, undermine national security, and rattle the Internet ecosystem. United States v. Google is prime government overreach, and Judge Mehta must consider balancing competition concerns and service benefits in his decision.
Google’s revenue-sharing agreements are standard business operations. They stipulate that companies that set Google or its Chrome browser as the original setting receive compensation from Google’s profits. However, halting Google's payments to device makers and browser developers would jack up smartphone prices, particularly the Google Pixel and Android line of phones. Ending these deals also jeopardizes the existence of smaller companies like Mozilla, which depend on these cash flows and partnerships to operate. A 2019 article from the Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics elaborates upon this dynamic:
From a competition policy point of view…the existence of one large marketplace can be efficient, as it helps to reduce search costs for potential trading partners compared to a situation in which a large number of small marketplaces exist.
The search engine market contains many linked economies of scale, which the DOJ suggests can create concentrated power. However, Google’s default agreements are open to competing bidders, inducing an environment where creativity and investment are crucial for business. Google CEO Sundar Pichai defended his company’s commitment to product quality by noting its eleven-year expenditure of $49 billion on artificial intelligence (AI) products.
In reality, Google’s AI, Gemini, has struggled with accuracy, with some users feeling betrayed by the search engine. The misfire, in part, caused Microsoft Bing’s market share to jump approximately two percent in the last fifteen months — Google’s fell by almost three percent. If services underperform, customers should have the option to seek quality elsewhere. It’s precisely why Google’s default agreements work: Its investing ability drives the innovation that improves the broader digital experience. In Google’s view, restricting these agreements could erode faith in general search engines and slow technological progress.
Google’s scale isn’t just for seamless usage and consumer choice; it offers a robust, domestic national security apparatus. A 2023 report by the National Library of Medicine found that Google’s extensive data capabilities and technological resources are proficient at informing the U.S. government on emerging threats and protecting critical digital infrastructure from foreign interference. Google’s Threat Intelligence Group actively collaborates with the U.S. Department of Defense, and recommended in February that financially motivated cybercrimes are a national security threat.
If Judge Mehta requires widespread data dissemination in a potential Google breakup, it would raise privacy challenges. Divesting from Chrome makes sensitive query data more likely to end up in the hands of unknown, malicious, and foreign actors. As law firm Holland & Knight argues, the DOJ is vague on what constitutes “Personally Identifiable information” and how it should be anonymized. Without a clear industry standard, a less sophisticated entity may be pigeonholed into handling high-value data without proper security. The Electronic Frontier Foundation noted that, in such a scenario, the ruling would “raise the risk of data breaches, improper law enforcement access, commercial data mining and aggregation, and other serious privacy harms.”
In today’s AI and data race with China—when China is quickly closing the gap—the U.S. cannot afford any missteps with its most potent players. As Google access is severely limited in China, the Chinese government has been spying on the Internet abroad to collect data on foreigners. They even hacked the Office of Personnel Management in 2015, gathering millions of fingerprint records, government security clearance protocols, and background check information. With precious Google data on the table, China would be giddy to exploit and coerce institutions that aren’t ready to combat such an adversary. Splitting Google would only accentuate that possibility, feeding Chinese models like Deepseek and imposing more roadblocks for Gemini to compete effectively.
With these variables at play, what should Judge Mehta do?
Firstly, the Judge should mandate flexibility in default search agreements, or render them non-exclusive. By requiring Google to allow device makers and browser companies to preload multiple search engines in setup prompts, it gives consumers more explicit choice while retaining Google's ability to compete.
Judge Mehta can also advocate that regulators support initiatives to incentivize competition, such as funding smaller search engine companies or open-source search technologies. This approach would invigorate the marketspace without directly penalizing Google.
To preserve national security, Mehta should require Google to regularly update regulators on its cybersecurity initiatives and critical infrastructure protection. Doing so provides the oversight Mehta wants while fostering enough transparency where classified information can be kept from prying eyes. All this can be accomplished while avoiding sweeping structural changes that could introduce unintended privacy and security risks.
Behavioral remedies, not government intervention, are the best outcome for all parties in United States v. Google, and our economic and national security hinge on Judge Mehta’s decision on innovation, global leadership, and liberty.
