Google is forcefully responding to the DOJ’s late night filing, which proposed remedies to address the company’s alleged monopoly in the internet search market.
The remedies are “radical,” according to a blog post by Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs. She adds that the company is “concerned the DOJ is already signaling requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case.”
Here are Google’s counterpoints, essentially, in chart form:
Google’s response echoes its pre-trial blog post, arguing that it’s all an overreach. That the DOJ’s remedies would harm consumers, businesses, and innovation. That forced data sharing risks privacy. That breaking apart Chrome and Android would raise device costs and soften security. That restricting Google’s AI could hurt American-led innovation on AI, overall. And, of course, that changes to its ad ecosystem would disadvantage small businesses and publishers the most.
Why This Matters:
The DOJ’s remedies would forever alter the search landscape. They would open up channels for Google’s competitors to reach users and level the playing field by making Google share data like search indexes and results. In theory, this could help rival search players improve their offerings. Limiting the development of Gemini, Google’s AI search tool, might allow others to innovate. Greater transparency in ad auctions and more advertiser control could diversify ad spend to others, weakening Google’s grip on search monetization.
However, this is just the start of a pretty long process. “Government overreach in a fast-moving industry may have negative unintended consequences for American innovation and consumers,” says Mulholland. Google will present its case in court next year in response to the DOJ’s final proposal, which is due by November 20th.
Experts React:
In a thread on X, Joseph Jerome, Public Policy at DuckDuckGo, commented on several of Google’s responses. “Sharing click and query data is already the law of the land in the EU, which has stronger privacy rules than the U.S. anyway,” he says. He also added, regarding Google’s comments that the DOJ remedies would “break” Chrome and Android, that it is “effectively platform hostage-taking, and a divorce between OS/browser and search certainly doesn’t break the products.”
Klon Kitchen, Managing Director and Global Technology Policy Practice Lead at the national security advisory group Beacon Global Strategies, takes the opposite stance. “This proposal underestimates the potential cybersecurity and national security risks involved,” he says. He adds that mandating Google to share its “data and AI models with competitors could create unintended security gaps, especially if foreign actors gain access to these resources.”
Our Take:
I’m not siding with Google here, but it’s worth considering whether some of the more drastic proposals (like breaking up Android and Chrome) might undermine the more reasonable remedies, such as addressing search distribution deals. In any negotiation, of course, you ask for more than you expect to get, so maybe that’s what’s happening here.
That said, the concerns about security and privacy are valid for consumers. Per Mulholland’s blog, “The search queries you share with Google are often sensitive and personal, and they’re protected by Google’s strict security standards. In the hands of a company with weaker security practices, bad actors could access that data, identify you, and track your search history — as we’ve seen before.”
Is this fear mongering? Sure. But if you ask people which tech companies they trust most with their data, after some thought, Google is often at the top of the list.
