The move comes amid two high-stakes antitrust trials that accuse Google of monopolistic practices. So, what’s at the heart of the government’s case, and why is Chrome a key piece of the puzzle? Let’s break it down.
Search, Chrome, and monopoly madness
In one corner, we have the DOJ versus Google in a trial in Washington, D.C., where a judge has already ruled that Google’s search business operates as an illegal monopoly. The DOJ argues that Google’s dominance in search, bolstered by its Chrome browser, gives the company an unfair advantage, effectively locking in users and advertisers.To remedy this, the DOJ has proposed that Google sell off Chrome entirely. This drastic move, they argue, could level the playing field and restore competition to a market where Google currently reigns supreme.
The ad tech tug-of-war
Meanwhile, in Virginia, a second trial focuses on Google’s grip on the ad tech market — the engine behind the ads you see while browsing. The government alleges that Google’s trio of advertising software products effectively monopolises the ad tech ecosystem.Publishers like News Corp and Gannett claim they’re stuck using Google’s ad tools to survive. DOJ lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum summed it up bluntly: “Google is once, twice, three times a monopolist.”
The DOJ accuses Google of using its financial clout to buy out rivals and control the auction systems that determine which ads appear online. This, they say, allows Google to charge advertisers more while paying publishers less. The government wants Google to divest parts of its ad tech business to dismantle this stranglehold.
Google fights back
Unsurprisingly, Google has a different story.The tech giant calls the government’s arguments an attempt to pick “winners and losers” in an already competitive market. “The law simply does not support what the plaintiffs are arguing in this case,” said Google’s lawyer Karen Dunn.
Google also argues that the ad tech market isn’t as straightforward as the DOJ claims. The company points out that ads appear across multiple platforms — search engines, social media, and apps — and Google doesn’t dominate all of them. In fact, it says rivals like Meta, Amazon, and TikTok are gaining ground.
Dunn warned that forcing Google to sell parts of its business or work with competitors would essentially amount to government interference. “This is central planning,” she said, urging the court to reject the DOJ’s proposals.
What’s at stake?
If the court rules against Google, the implications could be seismic. The DOJ’s proposals — selling Chrome or divesting parts of Google’s ad business — would fundamentally reshape how the company operates.But don’t expect a resolution anytime soon. Presiding Judge Leonie Brinkema is expected to issue her opinion swiftly, but any decision will almost certainly be appealed, dragging the case potentially to the US Supreme Court.
Even then, the question of enforcement remains murky. While the Biden administration is eager to rein in Big Tech, future administrations could change course. Whether Google will ultimately be forced to sell Chrome or parts of its ad tech business is up to the courts — and potentially years of appeals. For now, the trials highlight a growing unease with the power of tech giants like Google.
For Google, the stakes couldn’t be higher. For the rest of us, these decisions will shape the future of the internet as we know it. Stay tuned — this battle is far from over.