The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposal to break up Google isn’t the best or imminent solution to the company’s control of the search industry, according to some experts.
Americans have an affinity for the free enterprise system, coupled with an affection for democracy that has contributed to U.S. economic prosperity—but not for monopolies, which stifle competition, limit consumer choices, and drive up prices.
That’s why monopolies have been illegal since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was passed. The act prohibits unfair trade practices that limit or attempt to limit competition and authorizes the DOJ to enforce it.
However, proving that a company is a monopoly in a court of law and devising and implementing a solution that solves the problem is a complex task.
Still, the DOJ has made a strong case against Google’s ownership of Chrome and Android, highlighting how it constrains competition, and the future of the search engine industry.
The DOJ’s solution for limiting Google’s control of the search engine industry is to divest Chrome: “To safeguard against the possibility of further foreclosure and exclusion of rivals and potential entrants, including via self-preferencing, the [proposed final judgment] requires Google to divest Chrome.”
However, experts do not see a Google breakup as the best solution to the problem or as something that will happen anytime soon.
“Chrome’s value isn’t in direct revenue—it’s in ecosystem integration,” Sidharth Ramsinghaney, director of strategy and operations at cloud communications company Twilio, told The Epoch Times in an email.
“The honest discussion should focus on maintaining innovation while ensuring fair market access. This might be achieved through data access agreements and competitive API requirements rather than forced separation.”
Zack Seyun, the founder and CEO of Cartha AI, doesn’t see DOJ’s proposal to break up Google as a sure thing.
“Experts in the law suggest that Judge [Amit] Mehta may deal with the request to force the sale of Chrome quite cautiously, and for good reason,” he told The Epoch Times in an email.
“After all, going after the Microsoft juggernaut in the 1990s yielded an outcome—a massive fine—that few people wanted. Even if the DOJ wins in the appeals court, there’s a chance it might achieve something like Google’s 2 percent fine in Europe—a figure that sounds big but isn’t when one looks at how much Microsoft was forced to pay back in 2000.”
Dev Nag, CEO of QueryPal, sees the case potentially being mooted within 60 days when the new administration is inaugurated.
“Their concerns about maintaining U.S. competitiveness against China in AI development will likely push them toward maintaining Google’s structural integrity,” he emailed The Epoch Times.
“What we might see instead is a return to the traditional Republican approach to antitrust: extracting behavioral commitments and monetary penalties while preserving corporate structures.”
For Nag, the timing works in Google’s favor.
“With the remedies trial not scheduled until April 2025, the incoming administration will have plenty of time to shift course before any final ruling,” he said.
Andrey Meshkov, CTO of AdGuard, said the potential breakup of Google could have far-reaching consequences for consumers and the tech industry.
“If the U.S. Justice Department forces Google to sell Chrome and syndicate Google Search search results, the search engine market could see much-needed diversification,” he told The Epoch Times in an email.
For Meshkov, the DOJ’s proposal is too harsh for Google, as it attempts to dismantle core parts of its business.
“It’s hard to imagine that the proposal will be accepted in full, particularly given the vast implications for Google’s global operations and the tech industry,” he said.
“Additionally, while the divestiture of Android has been mentioned, it seems unlikely that this will happen—at least in the short term.”
Meshkov doesn’t think that selling Chrome is a better solution than the problem. Only a few tech giants have the resources to buy such an asset, especially considering that Chrome is currently estimated to be worth $20 billion.
“That means the competition for market share could become more concentrated, rather than decentralized, if the sale ends up in the hands of another tech monopoly like Amazon, which accounts for about 40 percent share of e-sales in the U.S.,” he said.
In addition, Meshkov remains skeptical about whether the judge will accept the DOJ’s proposed final judgment and, if so, whether the court will embrace the proposal.
“One thing is undeniable: the outcome of this process has the potential to shape the search engine and browser markets for years to come,” he said.
“In short, while the push for greater competition could benefit consumers in terms of more choice and privacy, the process could also create new challenges,” Meshkov concluded.
