Google breakup plans would ‘hurt America’s consumers, economy, and technological leadership’, senior exec claims
Google has struck back against US regulators, claiming that plans to dismantle the company would “hurt the economy”.
Last year, a court case brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) found Google had a monopoly in search. A trial that began this week seeks to decide the correct remedies, which could include breaking up aspects of Google, selling Chrome or spinning out Android.
The DOJ said in a filing that Google forces Americans to submit to “unbridled demands and shifting, ideological preferences” just to access a decent search tool.
Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist said in court Monday: “This is the time for the court to tell Google and all other monopolists who are out there listening — and they are listening — that there are consequences when you break the antitrust laws.”
Last week, in a separate case, a US judge found that Google has an illegal monopoly in advertising technology, and it faces a class-action style suit in the UK on the same subject.
Google breakup plans would harm the economy
While Google will get a chance to have its say in court, the company shared a blog post over the weekend ahead of the beginning of the trial, arguing its case to the public, and reiterating that it disagreed with the court’s decision last year.
The post pointed to its own proposal for remedies that would allow multiple search agreements, de-link Google’s apps in Android, and stressed that Google would appeal the ruling once the remedy was decided.
Penned by Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president of regulatory affairs, the post said the case was “backwards looking” given the current level of intense competition in online search sparked by the rise of AI, pointing to ChatGPT and DeepSeek.
“At trial we will show how DOJ’s unprecedented proposals go miles beyond the Court’s decision, and would hurt America’s consumers, economy, and technological leadership,” she wrote.
The post further argued the DOJ proposal would make it harder to access online services.
“People use Google because they want to, not because they have to,” Mulholland wrote. “DOJ’s proposal would force browsers and phones to default to search services like Microsoft’s Bing, making it harder for you to access Google.”
She added that the proposal would prevent competition in search, raise prices and slow innovation, adding that it would damage Mozilla Firefox which relies on Google payments from search distribution.
Similarly, the move would force Google to share sensitive and private search data with “companies you may never have heard of”.
On the topic of Android potentially being spun out, Google argued it would impact security, raise prices and hurt businesses.
“DOJ’s proposal to split off Chrome and Android — which we built at great cost over many years and make available for free — would break those platforms, hurt businesses built on them, and undermine security,” she wrote.
AI a new front for case?
Google argued that the DOJ proposal would “hamstring how we develop AI” by requiring a government committee to regulate the design of its related products.
Mulholland suggested this would “hold back American innovation at a critical juncture” as the firm and its counterparts contend with rising competition from overseas developers.
At the trial, Dahlquist argued that the court’s remedy should actively consider AI, saying Perplexity AI and OpenAI will both testify about the impact of Google’s industry dominance on their own businesses.
“This court’s remedy should be forward-looking and not ignore what is on the horizon,” Dahlquist said.
MORE FROM ITPRO
Source link
