On Wednesday, US prosecutors will outline measures that they hope will effectively break up Google in the case against the search giant. DOJ is planning to outline action that Google has to undertake after getting a verdict in August which said that the search engine has formed a monopoly in search and related advertisement services.
Google Faces DOJ’s Proposed Remedies for Search Monopoly
Started under the Trump administration, the case has taken a new turn with the DOJ now calling for a move. That one of the key sources of litigation has been Google’s search monopoly in the United States has led to a more general conversation about anti-competitive practices in the technology industry.
Among the main suggestions is the prohibition of search agreements that Google has with many large companies such as Apple to retain its exclusivity as the search engine of smart phones and tabs. These deals have created billion of dollar per annum payments platform which has firmly established Google in the market.
Furthermore, the DOJ may demand that Google sells these lines of business as a way of promoting competition. One major recommendation entails a forced sale of its Chrome browser, an action that may well result in a commercially disjointed internet experience.
The potential remedies suggest the pursuit to contain big tech and to bring more equity to the digital marketplace. If Google executes its next moves correctly, it will likely change its business model in the sector and its future with partners like Apple.
Google Opposes DOJ Proposal, Cites Risks to Consumers and AI
Google has equally vehemently condemned the U.S. Department of Justice’s proposed remedies for search monopoly as radical. Google’s key argument is that the envisaged changes will negatively affect both the American customers and companies, with the focus on industries where the firm operates most actively. Per Google antitrust measures will not be good for it is likely to hamper its development and innovation as well as the overall global economy.
The company also argued that the DOJ’s proposals are regressive and may hamper the ability of America, specifically in more emerging areas such as artificial intelligence (AI). Google proclaims it spent $1.5bn into AI the past year and states that interference with AI initiatives would curtail progress in the industry.
Apart from the courts, manipulation regarding the case may be provided by the former President of the United States – Donald Trump. Trump has earlier described Google as an enemy of the right wing questioning their bias against conservative opinion. The same year in September, he vowed to sue the company for such allegations.
On this front, it is however interesting that Trump has recently changed his mind on the need to break up Google. As if to wash his hands off, he even doubted whether break up is the best option a month after he threatened me with such utterances. Political sensitiveness may be introduced to the case if his perspective has shifted and he is willing to give strong political influence to the issue.
With the case still unfolding the outcomes for Google and technology companies in general remain relatively unknown. The result will not only dictate the direction of Google in the future but potentially offer a trend involving antitrust lawsuits against major tech giants in America.
Trump’s Influence Could Reshape Google Antitrust Case
Presumably as soon as the Donald Trump government embarks on office, it will be able to appoint a new head of the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). This key appointment shall enable him to shape the outcome of on going antitrust cases such as the Google monopoly case. Through the new appointment, he or she could change the strategies, enter new settlements, or worse, pull out the DOJ out of the equation.
However with the possible change of guard, Google is pressing on with its legal defence. The company wants to challenge a verdict in an appeal after the U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta offers his final judgment, which is estimated for augmentation of 2025. Google’s legal team is already setting the stage for an appeal – so the case could run for several years.
Google will have its own chance to submissions its proposals to eliminate the antitrust issues in December. Such proposals could suggest less extreme measures for the DOJ than its current demands which could include forced breakup. The company will want to find a strategy that strengthens its business model as well as managing the regulatory threats.
Mehta has set trial for April to consider the DOJ’s suggested cures. It will remain important to await the result of this trial in order to define the further measures in the given case. However it is the timing of the new antitrust head appointment by Trump that may bring uncertainty to the proceedings.
It remains to be seen whether Trump’s appointee will come into the case before the commencement of trial. The continued evolution of the case has much to do with shifting leadership at the DOJ and the general political climate with regards to antitrust regulation.
