Sources: DOJ antitrust officials plan to ask a judge to force Google to sell Chrome, license Search data, uncouple Android from Search and Google Play, and more

- Antitrust officials also to seek data licensing, AI measures — Google says the proposals would harm consumers and developers

Bloomberg 2024-11-19

Context & Ripple Effects

The reported package follows the DOJ's earlier consideration of breakup and data-sharing options after the Google monopoly ruling, including potential structural remedies and data access requirements. It also revives a line of thinking that had included a Chrome sale years earlier, when investigators weighed divestitures involving Chrome and parts of Google's ad business.

This matters because the proposed remedies span several connected layers of Google's distribution: browser access, search inputs, Android defaults, Play, and AI-related arrangements. The subsequent DOJ filing indicates those ideas moved from reported planning toward a formal remedy request, including a proposed Chrome divestiture and limits on Android search preference.

First-order effects

The immediate effect is a broader legal remedy fight for Google: the company must contest proposals affecting Chrome, Search data, Android, Google Play, and AI arrangements rather than a single conduct restriction.
Chrome, Android, and Google Play would face direct uncertainty because the proposals target how those products are owned, bundled, and used to distribute Google Search; no sale or separation occurs unless a judge orders it.

Second-order effects

If adopted, Search rivals could gain more viable distribution or data access, while Android device makers and developers would need to adapt to rules limiting preferential placement of Google Search and Play.
A Chrome divestiture or unbundling mandate would force browser, mobile-platform, and search competitors to reassess partnerships and product-default strategies that currently depend on Google's integrated distribution.

Third-order effects

The case tests whether antitrust remedies for digital platforms will move beyond banning specific agreements toward separating control of data, defaults, and distribution channels.
If courts sustain this approach, platform operators may face more scrutiny of how adjacent products reinforce a core service, though the eventual scope will depend on the remedy ruling and appeals.

The trend: US platform antitrust enforcement is increasingly focused on structural limits to integrated distribution, not only behavioral restrictions on individual contracts.

Discussion

@davidimel David Imel on threads
Is The Onion gonna buy Chrome too
@tomgara Tom Gara on threads
It's hard to read between the lines here but is the solution really going to be that Google continues paying Apple $20 billion a year to be the search engine in Safari but some other company has to buy Chrome from Google and get Microsoft to pay them to be search engine on Chrome…
@paul_rietschka Paul Rietschka on threads
Chrome as a sort of Mozilla-style PBC would be such a great development. Of course, we could have used Firefox all along instead, but that Rubicon was crossed ages ago and, personally, the horrid UI of Firefox* makes my eyes bleed. …
@gaudipern.bsky.social Bo Thompson on bluesky
This story is doubly interesting if you paid attention recent new, namely that Google is preparing to shutter ChromeOS in favor of Android on all future Chromebooks as a consolidation move against iOS and iPads... How will this potential monopoly busting impact that? — www.thev…
@carnage4life.bsky.social Dare Obasanjo on bluesky
This proposal seems absurd, as web browsers like Edge, Safari, Firefox, and Chrome rely on search revenue sharing as their primary business model. — Buying Chrome only makes sense if Google remains the default search engine—without that, the investment wouldn't be worthwhile.
@zeitlin.bsky.social Matt Zeitlin on bluesky
I use google services like Mail, Drive, and Maps, and my go-to browser is Chrome. How would spinning off Chrome make me better off? www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
@evangreer.bsky.social Evan Greer on bluesky
you love to see it www.theverge.com/2024/11/18/ 2...
@lukaszolejnik.bsky.social Lukasz Olejnik on bluesky
U.S. DoJ is to demnd breaking up Chrome from Google. This would likely be very bad for the web and web security. Stand-alone web browser is unlikely able to self-fund sustainably, innovate, and remain secure. Just no such business model. Yes, difficult. www.bloomberg.com/news…
@darthbluesky.bsky.social @darthbluesky.bsky.social on bluesky
fine DOJ — i will buy chrome [embedded post]
@kint.bsky.social Jason Kint on bluesky
KA-BOOM. So when Google and its proxies (see so-called Chamber of Progress), friendly academics and analysts continue to suggest Chrome has nothing to do with the case, please ask them how many days they were at the trial. /1 [image]
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
Google paid proxy is upset that the Department of Justice met with companies who have been harmed because his client and long time employer abused antitrust laws as it deliberated how to remedy. 🎻
@florian4gamers Florian Mueller on x
Highly unlikely that this would happen after all appeals have been exhausted. But strong remedies are objectively needed against Google.
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
More thoughts on new reporting re Google DOJ search remedies... 1. Website AI opt-outs. I get that publishers want this, but it's based on a legal theory of harm to publishers that was not part of the DOJ's case. The case was about harm to rival search engines. [image]
@suhail @suhail on x
Actually very in favor of this. I recently told a group of people that I think this would be the best way to reduce Google's dominance.
@mishaalrahman Mishaal Rahman on x
Details are sparse on what exactly this would mean. Notably, device makers can technically already ship Android without GMS (it's just AOSP in that case). However, if they want the Play Store and Play Services (which they do because that's where all the apps/useful APIs are), t…
@maxwinebach Max Weinbach on x
This may be one of the dumbest moves ever Google maintains Chromium for quite a few other ISAs. Google doesn't necessarily make money off of chromium, so forcing them to sell means you essentially kill it and Google forks their own version of Chrome to stop building for the
@tomwarren Tom Warren on x
US lawyers will reportedly try to force Google to sell Chrome and unbundle Android. It's part of a DOJ case that aims to break up Google's search monopoly by targeting Chrome, Android, and AI Overviews https://www.theverge.com/...
@suhail @suhail on x
A lot of people don't realize that if you analyze the Chromium source, there are many hidden things that prioritize Google products over all competition. That needs to end. A surface area over the address bar, New Tab, etc gives Google immense dominance.
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
the future of google search
@loudmouthjulia Julia Alexander on x
....does this not potentially help Apple even more? Or is the idea that Chrome is on the market to everyone but other companies already being investigated by the FTC? Genuine q! https://www.bloomberg.com/...
@adamscochran Adam Cochran on x
I spent years working in search, and a chunk of that on the acquisition side. I'm as anti-Google as they come but this is a dumb move. Google's competitive edge is their ad network access. Browsers are a loss leader that to monetize you have to abuse user data unless you alrea…
@mishaalrahman Mishaal Rahman on x
Wow: the DoJ's antitrust enforcers are “set to propose that Google uncouple its Android smartphone operating system from its other products, including search and its Google Play mobile app store,” according to Bloomberg. The DoJ has reportedly “pulled back from a more severe opt…
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
This is super important. It's an area @DCNorg (premium publishers) are intensely interested and concerned they get right around ability to restrict. The Court and trial made it clear they understood its importance during trial. We'll be reading closely on Wednesday. 2/3 [image]
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
Lest there be any doubt whom the Google search antitrust remedies are *for*, the DOJ “met with dozens of companies over the past three months” to prepare the remedies: https://www.bloomberg.com/... [image]
@suhail @suhail on x
@stevesi Huh, the distribution advantages are for search: address bar, New Tab, etc. - not to web browsing.
@stevesi Steven Sinofsky on x
@Suhail The original argument was that they won the browser because they had search. Now the argument is they win search because of the web browser. Neither is true.
@gerritd Gerrit De Vynck on x
if this ends in MSFT owning Chrome I'm moving to Fiji
@ericnewcomer Eric Newcomer on x
this is a genuinely terrible idea. Chrome is the main thing keeping me from being totally locked into the Apple ecosystem on my Mac. It is also a counter to Microsoft on PC. Chrome is a product that people generally have to proactively download. Consumers vote with their feet
@rakeshsfnyc Rakesh Agrawal on x
Whenever I use a browser other than Chrome to access Gmail, I get a banner to use Chrome instead. If Google didn't need a distribution advantage, they wouldn't be paying Apple billions a year to be in Safari.
@ryanbarwick Ryan Barwick on x
Google could be forced to sell Chrome AND break up its ad tech business https://www.bloomberg.com/...
@bdsams Brad Sams on x
Microsoft has the chance to do the funniest thing possible [image]
@rustybrick Barry Schwartz on x
A breakup of sorts for Google seems more likely.
@bdsams Brad Sams on x
Browser wars are back on the menu
@stevesi Steven Sinofsky on x
DOJ Will Push Google to Sell Off Chrome to Break Search Monopoly https://www.bloomberg.com/... // True insanity at this point in antitrust. There's so little distribution advantage to web browsing. If there were then Edge would have succeeded. This is not about consumers or benef…
@blaw @blaw on x
BREAKING: Top Justice Department antitrust officials have decided to ask a judge to force Google to sell off its Chrome browser in what would be a historic crackdown on one of the biggest tech companies in the world. https://blawgo.com/qShTxm7
@ceaddl @ceaddl on x
Forcing google to sell chrome is not absurd. Absurd is allowing google to continue controlling chrome. Weird, does @markgurman not care about privacy, security and the future of the internet. You cant have it both ways mark, google must let it go or it needs to die.
@dylanmcd8 Dylan on x
Man I just love when governments have a fundamental misunderstanding of how technology works
@markgurman Mark Gurman on x
Forcing Google to sell Chrome is absurd. Chrome is worth billions to Google but not on the open market. And any company that buys it would just be creating a new monopoly. Also ridiculous: proposals to untie Play from Android, which is impossible. https://www.bloomberg.com/...
r/technology r on reddit
DOJ Will Push Google to Sell off Chrome to Break Search Monopoly
r/Economics r on reddit
DOJ Will Push Google to Sell off Chrome to Break Search Monopoly
r/technews r on reddit
US lawyers will reportedly try to force Google to sell Chrome and unbundle Android
r/neoliberal r on reddit
DOJ Will Push Google to Sell Chrome to Break Search Monopoly
r/wallstreetbets r on reddit
DOJ forcing google to sell chrome
r/literaciafinanceira r on reddit
DOJ Will Push Google to Sell Chrome to Break Search Monopoly (1)
r/firefox r on reddit
DOJ Will Push Google to Sell off Chrome to Break Search Monopoly
r/Android r on reddit
DOJ Will Push Google to Sell off Chrome to Break Search Monopoly
r/law r on reddit
DOJ Will Push Google to Sell Chrome to Break Search Monopoly - Bloomberg
r/politics r on reddit
DOJ Will Push Google to Sell off Chrome to Break Search Monopoly
r/google r on reddit
DOJ Will Push Google to Sell off Chrome to Break Search Monopoly

Chronicles