Google—which began as a Stanford University science project and grew into one of the world’s most successful companies—is the type of “only in America” success that politicians should celebrate. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Biden Administration chose to drag Google into court for allegedly violating antitrust laws. The government’s case was just an attempt to punish Google for the “crime” of creating a browser that most internet users prefer to the alternatives, and using that success to gain even more market share. In other words: Google is being punished for behaving the way businesses are expected to behave in a competitive market.
Unfortunately, Google lost the case. The Justice Department then proposed “remedies” to the court—including forcing Google to sell their popular Chrome browser. The Justice Department also requested that Google be forbidden from contracting with device manufacturers, such as Apple, to make Google Chrome the default browser on their devices. The Biden Administration also wanted to force Google to provide a “choice screen” on Android devices so users would have to choose their default browser. Androids sold in Europe already must have a choice screen- yet 92% of European Android users chose to make Chrome their default browser! Google is number one because consumers prefer it, not because Google has MMP (Magic Monopoly Powers).
The Biden Justice Department also sought to prevent Google from preferencing —which is when a company uses their dominant position in one market to promote their own products rather than treat all competitors in the market equally. An example of preferencing would be for Google to manipulate search results for online maps to ensure Google Maps always comes up at the top. Outlawing preferencing would mean Google Maps could not be listed in a Google search—even though Google Maps is the number one online map of consumer choice.
It was not surprising that the Biden Justice Department proposed such radical “remedies.” What some people may be surprised at is that Gail Slater, the former JD Vance advisor whom President Trump put in charge of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, is not only retaining the same Biden Justice Department remedies, but is adding new remedies, presumably at the President’s behest, that set dangerous precedents for government intervention in the economy. In addition to forcing Google to sell Chrome, and forcing Google to stop making mutually beneficial deals with other companies to make Chrome the default browser on their products, the Trump Justice Department wants to force Google to give “qualified competitors” access to all of Google’s intellectual property for free. Aaron Kovacevich, former law professor and former CEO of the “center-left” tech group Chamber of Progress, writes that the proposal “would also let the Trump Administration decide who counts as a ‘qualified competitor’ to Google—and hand those companies the benefits of Google's innovation for free. That opens the door for Trump-aligned platforms like Truth Social and Rumble to get special treatment.”
Mr. Kovacevich may have a point, but the real danger is not just that President Trump and his allies could use this power to reward their favorite platforms and punish opponents, but rather that the power can be wielded by any President. So those conservatives tempted to support this to get back at big tech or to “level the playing field” between tech giants like Google and smaller sites like Rumble should consider how future Presidents could use this power to punish sites friendly to conservatives and reward sites that engage in aggressive “content moderation” against anyone more than six inches to the right of AOC.
The provision represents a major violation of Google’s property and First Amendment rights. The DOJ is also proposing that the government play a direct role in managing Google via a five person “technical committee.” The committee, whose members would be selected by the President, would not just have access to all of Google’s intellectual property—but could also overrule any of Google’s business decisions. The “technical advisory” committee resembles the Trump Administration’s proposal that the federal government have a “golden share” in US Steel as a condition of approving US Steel’s purchase by Japanese steel company Nippon. Like the technical committee, the Golden Share would allow the government to overrule decisions of the company. This type of government involvement with, and control of, a private business inevitably leads to inefficiency, increased costs, and lower employment. President Trump, Assistant AG Slater, Congress, and everyone else involved with economic policy in the Trump Administration should learn the lessons of history— letting politicians and bureaucrats run “private” businesses is no way to make a country great.
