The Chrome saga: The tricky legal fight Google and the DOJ must search answers for

The US government has taken further action to recommend breaking up internet giant Google and stripping it of its influential Chrome browser, as it aims to address what it says is a monopoly the company has over the powerful technology sector . It could also be the biggest challenge to a technology bellwether since Washington tried to take down Microsoft in 1998, coincidentally for also allegedly monopolising its control of the web with its Internet Explorer. It also draws parallels with similar legal battles against Facebook parent Meta Platforms and iPhone-maker Apple . Late on Wednesday, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed dismantling Alphabet-owned Google in a lengthy and incendiary 23-page document to the US District Court in the District of Columbia. It appears the DOJ is prepared to intensify its fight against the California-based company after a long, drawn-out four-year legal battle. Launched in 2008, Chrome redefined web browsing with a refreshed experience and a “cool” factor. Its entry into the market provided an attractive alternative to the dominance of Internet Explorer, which was plagued by security issues. Chrome is the world's biggest web browser in terms of market share, commanding nearly two thirds as of October, data from industry tracker Statcounter shows. It peaked at 72.38 per cent in November 2018. Apple's Safari is a very distant second with more than 18 per cent, followed by Microsoft Edge, the successor of Internet Explorer, with about 5.3 per cent. Chrome is built into Android devices and, in almost all of them, is the default browser. That is a very wide reach: while estimates vary, the general consensus is that the number of active Android devices worldwide are at least 3.3 billion. It is also a key and unifying component in Google's tech ecosystem. And that's not even counting users on desktops, tablets and other devices. That includes users of Apple's iOS, which “only” has about 1.4 billion globally. With its premium on web security, and compatibility to plug-ins and extensions, Chrome rapidly became popular and widely the browser of choice; how many times have you encountered the message, “best works with Google Chrome?” The Justice Department has levied allegations against Google and they are completely unflattering, if not direct to the point. According to the filing, “Google has unlawfully maintained its monopolies in general search services and search text advertising through a web of anticompetitive practices”. And that was just the opening salvo. It added that Google's manipulation and control of Chrome and Android allows the company to benefit only itself, “while sharing monopoly profits under conditions to induce third parties across the ecosystem to help Google maintain its monopolies”. Google’s “exclusionary conduct” has, among other things, basically funnelled users to itself; in particular, Google Search, the company's most powerful tool, has ensured that “virtually all search access points route users’ valuable queries and interaction data” to the company. That “unlawful” behaviour from Google has “deprived rivals not only of critical distribution channels but also distribution partners who could otherwise enable entry into these markets by competitors in new and innovative ways” – resulting in “significant” anticompetitive effects, preventing rivals from growing and innovating. Building on its case to break Google up and either sell or divest its interest in Chrome, the DOJ, in its “proposed final judgment”, detailed a number of sweeping recommendations – foremost of which is halting Google's exclusionary agreements with third parties and preventing Google from “self-preferencing through its ownership and control of search-related products”. It also wants to stop Google from acquiring, investing in or partnering with other companies that is “stifling or eliminating emerging competitive threats”, in addition to having the company disclose data critical to restoring competition, increase transparency and control for advertisers, and end its “unlawful” distribution. Enacting these measures will, the DOJ argues, restore competition to the markets. Any “remedy” to the situation must “enable and encourage the development of an unfettered search ecosystem that induces entry, competition and innovation”, and to help businesses win more consumers and advertisers – especially, it noted, with the current boom in artificial intelligence . Google has yet to formally respond to the filing, though it has maintained previously that the DOJ is somewhat overreaching with its recommendations when it comes to these circumstances. Some analysts, however, have come to Google's defence, arguing that dismantling Google would do more harm than good, which may defeat the purpose of the proposed legal actions. “Mandating a break-up that would require Google to sell off key elements of its integrated platform … would destroy key integrative efficiencies and reduce welfare,” said Alden Abbott, a former general counsel for the US Federal Trade Commission and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Centre, a research arm of Virginia's George Mason University. “As such, I view it as highly unlikely that Judge Mehta would endorse such a harmful 'remedy'. Rather, it is far more likely that the judge would endorse a behavioural non-structural remedy, such as the rewriting of key Google contracts.” Neil Chilson, a former FTC chief technologist and currently head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute, implies that the DOJ may be going too far, terming its initial proposals as “fantastical and now they're merely unbelievable”. “Not only would selling Chrome not really address the issues the court found liability for, it would risk the degradation of one of the most useful and commonly used pieces of free software,” he added. The case may also present a conundrum for incoming US president Donald Trump, who in the past has accused Google of promoting bias against conservative information. However, he has also signalled that dismantling the company might be too much of an ask from the government. Regulators under the administration of President Joe Biden have sought to make Google answer for their practices, especially after it was ruled in August by US District Judge Amit Mehta that the company was a monopolist. Mr Trump's government will inherit the case, and while it is unclear how much his regulators will pursue it, actions may potentially be not as harsh as it is right now, given Mr Trump's tech-friendliness. However, his pick for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, has long called for the break-up of tech giants. The hearings on Google's punishment are slated to start in April, with Mr Mehta expected to rule before US Labour Day. Google is expected to appeal any ruling not in its favour, which would further drag legal saga. “In any event, president-elect Trump has been quoted recently as opposing a break-up of Google. If the outgoing Biden DOJ insists on recommending a break-up of Google, I view it as likely that the new Trump DOJ would confess error and withdraw the break-up recommendation,” Mr Abbott said.

The Chrome saga: The tricky legal fight Google and the DOJ must search answers for

From fiery DOJ recommendations to a transitioning US government, it is unclear how this high-profile tech case will pan out