US Department of Justice Insists Google Must Sell Chrome to Address Antitrust Concerns

The U.S. Department of Justice reaffirmed its stance on Google’s antitrust case and insisted that Google’s search leader divest Chrome browser as a part of bigger efforts to tackle Google’s alleged monopolistic activities in the markets of search and ads. The DOJ’s court filing emphasizes that Google must cease paying partners for high-ranking search placement and divest Chrome, as well as any associated assets necessary for its sale.
The suggestion is that Google would be compelled to quickly and irrevocably sell Chrome to an acceptable buyer chosen by the plaintiffs, subject to judicial approval. The move seeks to promote competition in the technology industry as a new competitor is empowered as a principal portal to internet search. The DOJ argues that the giant size and unregulated dominance of Google have prevented customers and businesses from having the ability to make a choice among competing services and thus upset the marketplace.
Google’s near monopoly in the U.S. search market, at nearly 90%, is attributed by the company to its superior search technology. The DOJ maintains that Google maintains its monopoly by employing anticompetitive methods, including partnerships with device manufacturers and browser vendors that ensure Google becomes the default search engine. This is a deterrent for competitors, who cannot match the monetary incentives offered by Google.
The Google lawsuit was initiated in 2020 and is one of the largest tech antitrust suits in a generation, following the DOJ fight with Microsoft during the 1990s. In August 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta concluded that Google maintained an unlawful monopoly on general search and search text ads. The decision centered on Google’s deals with hardware manufacturers and browser companies, employing Google as their default search technology, which account for approximately 70% of U.S. search requests.
Google responded to the DOJ’s call for adjustments by proposing modifications to its deals, including the addition of several default search agreements across platforms and reducing the duration of its search revenue agreements with hardware companies. Google also emphasized that its revenue partners have the right to make deals with any search provider of their preference.
Despite these proposals, the DOJ has remained adamant in its key requirements, including divestment of Chrome and preventing search-related payments to distribution partners. The department has, nonetheless, relaxed its stance on Google’s investments in artificial intelligence, no longer requiring their divestment but merely advance notice on future investments.
The decision to retain these requests under the Trump administration is a testament to continued aggressive regulatory pressure on Google that aligns with the Biden administration’s strategy for regulating tech behemoths. The case is set to proceed with arguments over proposed remedies in April, an important milestone in the ongoing antitrust battle.