Sources: DOJ and state AGs investigating Google for alleged antitrust violations are considering forcing it to sell Chrome and parts of its ad business
Prosecutors for the Justice Department and state attorney general offices are discussing ways of curbing the search giant's market power as they prepare to sue the company.
The deliberation proved durable rather than speculative: four years later the DOJ moved from considering options after the monopoly ruling to formally asking a judge for a Chrome divestiture, Android restrictions, and an end to default search deals (the filing demanding a Chrome sale), with analysts arguing the browser itself may be less threatening to Google than data-licensing remedies (why a Chrome sale might not curb Google most) — meaning this 2020 moment marks the first appearance of the remedy set that defined the case.
First-order effects
Google faces the prospect of losing Chrome and parts of its ad business before the lawsuits are even filed, turning the pre-suit period into a negotiation over the scope of structural separation rather than over whether enforcement happens.
State AGs and the Justice Department aligning on divestiture means Google confronts coordinated multi-jurisdiction pressure instead of piecemeal complaints.
Second-order effects
Once divestiture enters the remedy menu, the target zone expands beyond the browser to adjacent distribution assets — the path that later produced demands to license Search data, uncouple Android, and ban default search deals on rival operating systems.
Third-order effects
If the pattern holds, US antitrust enforcement against platform companies normalizes structural breakups — a remedy floated as trial-balloon sourcing in 2020 hardening within four years into a formal judicial demand — resetting expectations for how regulators treat distribution chokepoints like browsers and default agreements.
The trend: US antitrust enforcement against big tech platforms is converging on structural remedies — forced divestitures, data licensing, and default-deal bans — aimed at breaking distribution lock-in rather than penalizing conduct.
Since every non-MSFT browser is subsidized by Google Search, what does it even mean to sell it? Estimates are that Google pays Apple $7B a year to be the default in Safari & $500M to Firefox. Will the spin off be forced not to take Google's money? If not, what's the point?
DoJ wants Google to sell Chrome for interesting reasons. Any privacy changes Chrome makes to reduce tracking hurts advertisers so they're always suspect even if Mozilla/Apple do the same thing. https://www.politico.com/...
Prosecutors for the Justice Department and state attorney general offices are discussing ways of curbing the search giant's market power as they prepare to sue the company. https://www.politico.com/...
In my opinion, framing a privacy issue as a market dominance problem is a mistake. In a monopoly of data collection-and-exploitation what first needs to be fixed is not the monopoly part... https://twitter.com/...
Ahh yes, if we apply the policies we applied to railroads 100 years ago to a free product that people love, that will solve all our problems! https://twitter.com/...
This won't solve the problem. Google's dominance is not because of the browser. It's their search algorithms and analytical tracking platforms. https://twitter.com/...
Not often these days that we get a largely bipartisan consensus on big issues. In the ideal scenario, this is positive conciliatory momentum to take into the post-election world. https://onezero.medium.com/...
.@WillOremus' newsletter this week is a perfect, nuanced explainer on what we can expect in terms of antitrust action against Big Tech moving forward, following the release of two key reports this week. https://onezero.medium.com/...
One of the most obvious examples of how market power induces bad quality products is Siri. Siri is a terrible voice assistant, and has been so for years. But Apple ties Siri into its iOS and so that's that. Horrible quality product.
A common spread I see in anti-trust discussion of tech (particular from outside tech) is the presumption that competition to Google look like Google, &competition to Facebook will look like Facebook - and people aren't investing in search that means there is a ‘kill zone’
In all the coverage of the Democrats' sweeping vision for antitrust reform of Big Tech, it was easy to overlook that even the “dissenting” Republican proposal would represent dramatic progress in antitrust enforcement. My story: https://rsci.app.link/...