Last week, Google returned to court, just days after a judge found the company guilty of holding an illegal monopoly with its ad business. The trial is set to determine what consequences Google should face for operating a monopoly with its search engine.
To clarify, Google has been found guilty of operating two illegal monopolies:
- In August 2024, a judge ruled that Google had a monopoly with its search business, and the DOJ requested that the judge break up the company, starting with splitting off its Chrome web browser. Google returned to court last week to fight this.
- Two weeks ago, a different court ruled that Google had a monopoly over two of the three parts of the online advertising market including the tools used by websites to host open ad space and the tools advertisers use to buy that ad space. There will be another hearing in the future to determine the consequences of this monopoly.
Even though Google plans to appeal the ruling, last week's process of deciding what consequences the company should face is still going ahead.
The DOJ is demanding that:
- Google let competitors use its data to power their own search engines. (That's ridiculous.)
- Google notify the government when it invests in AI start-ups. (That's reasonable, but make all tech companies do the same.)
- Google sell off its Chrome web browser, which has about two-thirds of the global browser market. (I'm on the fence about this one.)
- Google no longer make deals with cellphone companies or publishers that favor its search engine or apps. (Also reasonable.)
Google is fighting back against the ruling, claiming that the government’s “radical” demands would harm competition and innovation. From last week until the end of May, both Google and the DOJ will present new evidence and witnesses to prove their points. The judge says his final decision will come by September.
During the trial it was revealed through testimony that companies are lining up to buy Chrome:
- OpenAI executive Nick Turley testified that his company would be interested in buying Chrome if Google was forced to sell it. He said that currently ChatGPT has a Chrome extension available for users to download, but having Chrome be more deeply integrated into OpenAI would allow for a better product. Turley said he has “deep worry that we may be shut out” by some of the bigger companies in the market like Google.
- Yahoo has been working on its own web browser, and says it would like to buy Chrome if the Google is forced by a court to sell it so that it could speed up its browser efforts. Yahoo Search General Manager Brian Provost said that about 60% of searches are done through a web browser's address bar, which is why the company needs to put its own browser out in the market. He added that Yahoo is in discussion with other companies about buying a browser, but he didn't say which ones. (Remember when Yahoo tried to buy Google for $3B back in 2002?)
- DuckDuckGo's CEO Gabriel Weinberg told the court that Chrome could be sold for as much as $50B, and that they wouldn't be able to afford it.
- Perplexity Chief Business Officer Dmitry Shevelenko originally said he didn't want to testify in trial about how to resolve Google's search monopoly because he feared retribution from Google, but after being subpoenaed to testify, he admitted that his company was interested in buying Chrome as well. When asked if Perplexity believes anyone besides Google could run a browser at the scale of Chrome without diminishing its quality or charging for it, Shevelenko said, “I think we could do it.” (“I think?” Be more confident, Shevelenko.)
Does the world need a different AI goliath or tech giant to own and operate Chrome?
Browsers play a big role in safeguarding the Internet, and in an ideal world, are independent of any search, AI, or advertising company. In this fictitious ideal world, browsers give users choice of integration partners and don't push default services.
Selling Chrome to OpenAI or Perplexity feels like we'd simply be trading one company's evil monopolistic intentions for another. Can we really assume that a competing for-profit AI search company would be better stewards of running the world's largest web browser by market share than Google? Or is the real solution to introduce regulation that lets Google keep Chrome but requires it to open its access to other AI search companies to give users choice?