US Department of Justice considering a break-up of Google after monopoly ruling

Posted:
in General Discussion

The Department of Justice is seeking to break Google into several parts to solve its search monopoly, with the company divesting itself of Android and Chrome as a possible solution.

Google pays to be the default
Google pays to be the default



Having accused Google of knowingly breaking antitrust laws, and persuaded a judge that it is a monopoly, the Department of Justice has been outlining possible next steps. As expected, this does now include how Google may have to be broken up.

The steps under consideration have been presented in a filing ahead of a court case in 2025. Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, says that the DOJ is overreaching, and ignoring the potential harm to consumers of its proposals.

"The US Department of Justice (DOJ) today shared a broad outline of radical changes it may demand as part of its lawsuit over how we distribute Search," wrote Mulholland in a blog post. "This is the start of a long process and we will respond in detail to the DOJ's ultimate proposals as we make our case in court next year... however, we are concerned the DOJ is already signaling requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case."

As outlined by Mulholland, the DOJ proposals center on:


  • Splitting off Chrome or Android

  • Forcing Google to share search queries with competitors

  • Hampering Google's AI tools

  • Restricting how Google promotes its search

  • Changing the online advertising market



"We believe that today's blueprint goes well beyond the legal scope of the Court's decision about Search distribution contracts," continues Mulholland. "Government overreach in a fast-moving industry may have negative unintended consequences for American innovation and America's consumers."

As yet, Google offers little detail on its responses to the DOJ, particularly over what exactly hampering its AI tools means, or what form the changes to the advertising market might be.

However, it is adamant that splitting off Chrome or Android "would break them -- and many other things." Saying that Google has invested billions of dollars in both of these, Mulholland points out that it offers them for free.

"Few companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do," she says. "Make no mistake: Breaking them off would change their business models, raise the cost of devices, and undermine Android and Google Play in their robust competition with Apple's iPhone and App Store."

Both the DOJ and Google are due to issue further proposals in November and December 2024. The trial that Google says it looks forward to, is scheduled for April 2025.

Separately, the DOJ is also suing Apple over alleged antitrust issues. That trial is not expected to start until late 2026.



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 8,000member
    There is no doubt in my mind that all the so-called 'Big Tech' companies have harmed consumers in one way or another.

    Often it has been through a process of cordoning off users or walling them in or colluding amongst themselves to protect their 'gatekeeper' status.

    For example, Google paying Apple for default search status might well be considered as collusion to protect interests at the expense of others. 

    Without doubt there has also been Big Tech overreach too, so it's ironic to see Google claiming that from the DoJ (even if it does turn out to be government overreach).

    Now Big Tech is on a potentially Big Hook for a range of different reasons.

    The question is if they can wiggle off it and how. 
    apple4thewinspheric
  • Reply 2 of 10
    avon b7 said:
    There is no doubt in my mind that all the so-called 'Big Tech' companies have harmed consumers in one way or another.

    Often it has been through a process of cordoning off users or walling them in or colluding amongst themselves to protect their 'gatekeeper' status.

    For example, Google paying Apple for default search status might well be considered as collusion to protect interests at the expense of others. 

    Without doubt there has also been Big Tech overreach too, so it's ironic to see Google claiming that from the DoJ (even if it does turn out to be government overreach).

    Now Big Tech is on a potentially Big Hook for a range of different reasons.

    The question is if they can wiggle off it and how. 
    I mean watch the video from MrWhoseTheBoss from a week or so ago regarding how social media and tech companies knowingly trick you for engagement and some cases to anger users.
    sphericSpitbath
  • Reply 3 of 10
    ralphieralphie Posts: 128member
    I mean watch the video from MrWhoseTheBoss from a week or so ago regarding how social media and tech companies knowingly trick you for engagement and some cases to anger users.
    If people that watch those are suckered in, that’s on them.  Internet is for “entertainment purposes only”, period.
    williamlondonsconosciutowatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 10
    lotoneslotones Posts: 101member
    "However, it is adamant that splitting off Chrome or Android "would break them -- and many other things." Saying that Google has invested billions of dollars in both of these, Mulholland points out that it offers them for free. 

    "Few companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do," she says. "

    At which point the entire Mozilla Firefox team did a spit-take with their morning coffee, gasping for oxygen as they doubled over in uncontrollable laughter... 
    avon b7appleinsideruserDAalsethwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 10
    avon b7 said:
    There is no doubt in my mind that all the so-called 'Big Tech' companies have harmed consumers in one way or another.

    Often it has been through a process of cordoning off users or walling them in or colluding amongst themselves to protect their 'gatekeeper' status.

    For example, Google paying Apple for default search status might well be considered as collusion to protect interests at the expense of others. 

    Without doubt there has also been Big Tech overreach too, so it's ironic to see Google claiming that from the DoJ (even if it does turn out to be government overreach).

    Now Big Tech is on a potentially Big Hook for a range of different reasons.

    The question is if they can wiggle off it and how. 
    I mean watch the video from MrWhoseTheBoss from a week or so ago regarding how social media and tech companies knowingly trick you for engagement and some cases to anger users.
    All people have to do is put away the social media. Meta would be ruined if people would simply exercise their free will. It’s not necessary to modern lives unlike credit cards or automobiles.
    edited October 9 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 10
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 661member
    Will never happen. DOJ will be flipped after the next election and all of these types of events will be litigated for years and years. By the time it is resolved the things they are worried about may not even be relevent
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 10
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 3,014member
    jimh2 said:
    Will never happen. DOJ will be flipped after the next election and all of these types of events will be litigated for years and years. By the time it is resolved the things they are worried about may not even be relevent
    That’s my fear. I remember when the charges against Microsoft reached this point. MS was going to be broken up into Apps, Desktops, and Servers units and IMO that would have benefited the whole industry. But then there was a change of administration and the new DoJ seized defeat from the jaws of victory and went home. The result was ~15 years of moribund Microsoft development, the Ribbon, Windows Vista, Windows 8, an inept and ultimately failed mobile strategy crippled by a Windows Everywhere mindset. So yes I want to see Google broken up. It nwould be better for everyone involved including Google. 
    edited October 9 ForumPostwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 10
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,106member
    lotones said:
    "However, it is adamant that splitting off Chrome or Android "would break them -- and many other things." Saying that Google has invested billions of dollars in both of these, Mulholland points out that it offers them for free. 

    "Few companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do," she says. "

    At which point the entire Mozilla Firefox team did a spit-take with their morning coffee, gasping for oxygen as they doubled over in uncontrollable laughter... 

    You do realize the Google is responsible for over 80% of Mozilla Firefox revenue ... right? I doubt that Mozilla Firefox team members would be .... laughing uncontrollably ...... at the possible loss of over 80% (in 2022) of their revenue generated, from having Google as their default search. Apple can take the $20B loss.


    >The Mozilla Corporation's relationship with Google has been noted in the popular press, especially with regard to their paid referral agreement. Mozilla's original deal with Google to have Google search as the default web search engine in the browser expired in 2011, but a new deal was struck, where Google agreed to pay Mozilla just under a billion dollars over three years until 2017 in exchange for keeping Google as its default search engine. The price was driven up due to aggressive bidding from Microsoft's Bing and Yahoo's presence in the auction as well. Despite the deal, Mozilla Firefox maintains relationships with Bing, Yahoo!, Yandex, Bandai, Amazon.com and eBay. The partnership with Google was renewed in 2017 and remains active as of 2022.<



    edited October 9 gatorguythtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 10
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,106member
    avon b7 said:
    There is no doubt in my mind that all the so-called 'Big Tech' companies have harmed consumers in one way or another.

    Often it has been through a process of cordoning off users or walling them in or colluding amongst themselves to protect their 'gatekeeper' status.

    For example, Google paying Apple for default search status might well be considered as collusion to protect interests at the expense of others. 

    Without doubt there has also been Big Tech overreach too, so it's ironic to see Google claiming that from the DoJ (even if it does turn out to be government overreach).

    Now Big Tech is on a potentially Big Hook for a range of different reasons.

    The question is if they can wiggle off it and how. 
    Not under US Anti-Trust laws. In the US, "collusion" is most often when two companies that are usually competitors, make an agreement to not compete with each other or to fix the price of their products. And the "fixing" of the price of their products need not be on the high side. Two competitors would be guilty of collusion, if their combined market share gives them monopoly or market power and they agree to lower the price of their products to drive out their other competitors. Even though the consumers would benefit from the lower price.

    There are other form of "collusion"but the key part is that it almost always involves companies that are competitors agreeing on something that benefits them and harming the consumers or a third party.

    Here, Google and Apple are not competitors in the browser search market. In reality, Google do not "pay" Apple $20B (a year) to be the default search engine on iOS Safari. Google agrees to share with Apple, a percentage of their mobile search revenue that originated from Google search on iOS Safari. And that percentage is rumored to be about 33% and amounts to over $20B.

    Google have stated that over 50% of their mobile search ad revenue is from iOS, even though iOS have only about 20% of the global market. There is nothing anti-trust about Apple wanting to monetize that agreement, as much as they can by promoting the use of Google search engine. So Apple makes Google search their default search engine. Therefore, this agreement now "cost" Google over $20B (a year). But this same agreement only cost Google $1B (a year), over 12 years ago. This show how much iOS search ad revenue have grown for Google since then.  And a lot of this has to do with Apple investing billions in their ecosystem (over the years), to attract users that spends a lot of time and money on the internet using their Apple mobile devices.

    If this agreement still stands, even if Apple do not make Google their default search, then it might still cost Google over $20B a year, as the vast majority of iOS users would still use Google search anyway. If Microsoft had agree to share 100% of their ad revenue from Bing search, it might not even amount to anything close to $20B for Apple. Would it make sense for Apple to choose Bing over Google?

    But what if it was Apple that demanded Google to share 33% of their ad revenue from iOS Safari search, if they made Google search the default? Would that amount to any sort of "collusion" because it would result in the same $20B a year payment from Google to Apple, to be the default search?

    What might be "collusion" is if Apple made a deal with to Google to be the only search engine for Safari, in exchange for a percentage of the search ad revenue from iOS Safari. It would also be an anti-trust violation if Google were to threaten Apple to not provide Safari with Google search, unless Apple made Google search the default. 

    Here's a very interesting 3 year old article that compares Google paying to be the default search and top brand product companies paying for prime shelf space in grocery stores. Might change your mind about how the DOJ might consider the Google/Apple deal "collusion". Even if the DOJ might find the deal wrong, it won't be because they consider it collusion (under Anti-trust). "Collusion" under anti-trust would also make it illegal for Apple to monetize their default search engine.



    edited October 10 thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 10
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,080member
    avon b7 said:
    There is no doubt in my mind that all the so-called 'Big Tech' companies have harmed consumers in one way or another.

    Often it has been through a process of cordoning off users or walling them in or colluding amongst themselves to protect their 'gatekeeper' status.

    For example, Google paying Apple for hi default search status might well be considered as collusion to protect interests at the expense of others. 

    Without doubt there has also been Big Tech overreach too, so it's ironic to see Google claiming that from the DoJ (even if it does turn out to be government overreach).

    Now Big Tech is on a potentially Big Hook for a range of different reasons.

    The question is if they can wiggle off it and how. 
    Tech companies shouldn’t be broken up (The DOJ are idiot) but they should be heavily taxed (Advertising and subscriptions) as sin/vice taxes similar to smoking and alcohol.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.