Googles Chrome Future Hangs In The Balance
The Core Dispute Googles Fight for Chrome
Google on Friday urged a US judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser, a move intended to weaken its dominance in online search. Rival attorneys presented their final arguments before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta. Judge Mehta is currently considering imposing remedies following a landmark decision last year which found Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search.
Three weeks of testimony concluded in early May, with Friday's session in a Washington courtroom dedicated to legal arguments from both sides.
Governments Push for Divestiture
US government attorneys are advocating for Judge Mehta to order Google to divest itself of the Chrome browser. They argue that artificial intelligence is set to further entrench the tech giant's position as the primary gateway to the internet.
Furthermore, the government seeks to bar Google from entering into agreements with partners like Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools. These agreements were a central focus of the lawsuit against the Silicon Valley internet giant. Department of Justice (DoJ) attorney David Dahlquist highlighted that Apple, despite receiving billions to make Google Search the default on iPhones, "repeatedly asked for more flexibility" but was denied by Google.
Googles Counterarguments Innovation and User Impact
John Schmidtlein, an attorney representing Google, contended to Judge Mehta that no evidence presented demonstrated that people would have chosen a different search engine if the exclusivity deals were not in place. Schmidtlein pointed out that Verizon installed Chrome on its smartphones even though the US telecom major owned the Yahoo search engine and was not contractually obligated to Google. He emphasized that out of approximately 100 witnesses, none stated they would have installed Microsoft's Bing search engine if they had more flexibility.
Google also argues that the US government's recommendation to spin off Chrome, and potentially force a sale of its Android mobile operating system, goes far beyond the original scope of the lawsuit.
Jennifer Huddleston, a Cato Institute senior fellow in technology policy, stated, "Forcing the sale of Chrome or banning default agreements wouldn't foster competition. It would hobble innovation, hurt smaller players, and leave users with worse products."
Schmidtlein further noted the global implications, stating that over 80 percent of Chrome users are outside the United States. "Any divested Chrome would be a shadow of the current Chrome," he argued. "And once we are in that world, I don't see how you can say anybody is better off."
The Rise of AI and Shifting Search Landscape
The potential weakening or spinoff of Chrome arises as competitors like Microsoft, ChatGPT, and Perplexity are increasingly using generative artificial intelligence (AI) to retrieve information from the internet in response to user queries. The antitrust suit against Google was filed about five years ago, prior to ChatGPT's debut which ignited widespread enthusiasm for AI.
Google is heavily investing in AI to maintain a leading position and is integrating this technology into its search and other online services. During the trial, Apple's vice president of services, Eddy Cue, revealed that Google's search traffic on Apple devices saw a decline in April for the first time in over two decades. Cue attributed this shift to users turning to AI alternatives such as ChatGPT and Perplexity.
Debating Data and Competitive Fairness
Judge Mehta questioned both sides regarding the potential for Google to share data as proposed by the DoJ in its recommended remedies.
DoJ attorney Adam Severt told the judge, "We're not looking to kneecap Google. But, we are looking to make sure someone can compete with Google."
In response, Schmidtlein argued that the data Google is being asked to share encompasses more than just information about online searches. He asserted it would be equivalent to surrendering the results of decades of investment. "There are countless algorithms that Google engineers have invented that have nothing to do with click and query data," Schmidtlein stated. "Their remedy says we want to be on par with all of your ingenuity, and, respectfully your honor, that is not proportional to the conduct of this case."
