The US v. Google remedies trial opens with the DOJ arguing that Google should be forced to divest Chrome, and Google calling the proposed remedies “extreme”

The remedies trial opens in Washington with the government pushing to break up the company through measures that Google lawyers deem “extreme.”

Washington Post 2025-04-22 Julian Mark

Context & Ripple Effects

The remedies phase follows the DOJ's earlier call for behavioral and structural remedies in the Google Search case, moving the dispute from liability arguments to the form of court-ordered relief. Google had countered with a proposal that would allow browser companies to make multiple default-search agreements across platforms, rather than require a breakup.

First-order effects

The DOJ is asking the court to make Chrome a divestiture target, placing a core Google browser asset at the center of the remedy dispute.
Google must defend against a structural remedy it characterizes as extreme while advancing its less restrictive alternative.

Second-order effects

The trial tests whether changes to default-search arrangements and platform conduct could be accepted instead of a Chrome sale, affecting the negotiating leverage of browser companies and operating-system providers.
A ruling favoring structural relief would raise the stakes for firms whose distribution arrangements depend on Google Search defaults; a behavioral remedy would preserve more of the current platform structure.

Third-order effects

If the court embraces divestiture, US antitrust enforcement would have a more consequential precedent for using structural remedies against digital distribution power rather than relying chiefly on conduct restrictions.
The eventual remedy will help determine whether platform competition cases are resolved by opening distribution channels or by separating assets that control them; the record here does not establish which approach the court will choose.

The trend: The case is part of a broader shift toward testing structural antitrust remedies for control over digital distribution, alongside limits on exclusionary default arrangements.

Discussion

@aravsrinivas Aravind Srinivas on x
Perplexity has been asked to testify in the Google DOJ case. Our core points: 1. Google should not be broken up. Chrome should remain within and continue to be run by Google. Google deserves a lot of credit for open-sourcing Chromium, which powers Microsoft's Edge and will al…
@aagslater Abigail Slater on x
🚨Google Is Back In Court After Breaking The Law Earlier today, I delivered a few remarks before the opening arguments in the Google Search Remedies Trial. Watch 👇 [video]
@joejerome Joseph Jerome on x
Listening into the DOJ's opening statement in the Google remedy trial, the government scoffs at Google's claim that implementing a Microsoft-style technical committee is a due process violation. “That's a new one to us.” https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ ...
@balancecrafting @balancecrafting on x
Agree, DOJ smartly made sure to show how remedies match up with Mehta's liability findings, complete with chart showing how they addressed each point and Google didn't (Plus remedies are holistic & Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored broad discretion for equitable remedies)
@aravsrinivas Aravind Srinivas on x
The remedy that is right in our opinion is not a breakup of Google; but rather offering consumers the choice to pick their defaults on Android without feeling the risk of a loss in revenue. That's what we will be proposing. Read more here: https://www.perplexity.ai/...
@aravsrinivas Aravind Srinivas on x
OEMs feel threatened about any changes here even outside the defaults, because the magnitude of revenue sharing offered to them by Google to preserve the status quo even when better alternatives are available. Eg: Perplexity's Android Assistant is regarded as superior to Gemini.
@balancecrafting @balancecrafting on x
Google PR keeps pretending opening search competition after illegal monopolization is “backwards-looking,” “unnecessary and harmful” in AI era But Google immediately caved in turning over AI discovery & its own remedies proposal addresses Gemini DOJ's first witness today... 🧵
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
At the Google search remedy trial. Two interesting notes so far. First, Google has already revises its distribution agreements to remove the exclusivity provisions. Second, an OpenAI official and Perplexity's co-founder will testify on how Google hinders them from competing.
@aagslater Abigail Slater on x
Today begins the final chapter for this historic litigation. The Court has already decided liability, and Judge Mehta has made two things clear: 1) Google is a monopolist. 2) Google broke the law. It illegally monopolized the online search and online search text ads markets.
@aravsrinivas Aravind Srinivas on x
The DOJ is pushing for Chrome to be divested from Google. We don't believe anyone else can run a browser at that scale without a hit on quality, nor the business model to be able to serve that many users profitably by keeping the browser free. Chromium is open source, and other…
@newsfromgoogle @newsfromgoogle on x
As we showed during opening arguments today, the DOJ's unprecedented remedies proposals go miles beyond the Court's decision, and would harm America's consumers, economy, and technological leadership. https://blog.google/...
@khushitavasant @khushitavasant on x
Day 1 of DOJ's remedy trial v Google in search monopoly suit. @JusticeATR leadership sported these custom-made wristbands of words Google uses to describe DOJ's remedy proposal. Also @AAGSlater made sure to clarify no taxpayer money was used to make these. @rogerpalford [image]
@megangra Megan Gray on x
Google Search antitrust remedies trial: Stunningly powerful opening argument from DOJ/states. So, so good, custom-tailored to judge decision, specific precedent, pre-buttal to Google arguments - and even crafted w comms-advocacy principles.
@balancecrafting @balancecrafting on x
Judge Mehta is grappling with the “significant causal connection” language from the Microsoft case, asked both sides about it during their openings for Google remedies Mehta asked Google if “perhaps” judges can't “purely establish [causation] by inference”? Then...
@aravsrinivas Aravind Srinivas on x
The thing that is particularly frustrating about Google to us is how hard it is to change anything on Android. OEMs can only use a Google-approved version of Android, if they want to have core Google apps like PlayStore, Maps, etc. And “Google-approved” means keeping Google as …
@campuscodi.risky.biz Catalin Cimpanu on bluesky
Oh... so that's why Samsung shoved that s**t down my throat this month... Samsung is now a goddamn pay-per-install cybercrime group 😵‍ [embedded post]
r/Android r on reddit
Google Paid Samsung ‘Enormous Sums’ for Gemini AI App Installs

Chronicles