3 takeaways from the DOJ’s final proposal in the Google search antitrust case
Illustration by Robyn Phelps / Shutterstock / the Current
The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is doubling down on its pursuit of antitrust remedies against Google to address its search monopoly, continuing the aggressive stance initiated under the previous Biden administration. In a proposed judgment filed last Friday, the DOJ reaffirmed its recommendation that Google be forced sell its Chrome browser as a proposed remedy in the ongoing search antitrust case.
The DOJ is also calling for the tech giant to terminate exclusive agreements that position Google as the default search engine — such as the $20 billion deal with Apple — and mandates increased transparency in Google’s advertising operations.
“Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that — no matter what occurs — Google always wins. American consumers and businesses suffer from Google’s conduct,” DOJ lawyers asserted in their proposal to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who is presiding in the case.
This filing from the Trump administration’s DOJ comes despite requests from Google that the Justice Department reconsider proposed remedies due to national security concerns, as reported by Bloomberg.
“DOJ’s sweeping proposals continue to go miles beyond the court’s decision, and would harm America’s consumers, economy and national security,” Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels wrote in a statement to Wired.
That two administrations have pursued similar remedies to address Google’s conduct reflects bipartisan concern over Google’s market power and influence relating to search. There were plenty of takeaways for advertisers from the filing, but here are three of the biggest ones.
1. Transparency takes center stage
The government did not request additional remedies regarding Google’s data-sharing with advertisers. However, the DOJ clarified its demands.
One is that Google provide advertisers with real-time information on ad performance and costs. It also would be required to “increase advertiser control by improving keyword matching options to advertisers” and make it easier to export search text ad data and bidding details for keywords.
These measures could give brands and media buyers unprecedented insight into Google’s advertising system, offering greater transparency and a more accurate view of pricing, according to experts following the case.
“The DOJ strengthened its requirements related to transparency for advertisers, stating that the company must provide readily accessible granular placement and performance reporting to advertisers across their entire portfolio of ads purchased through Google, inclusive of Google Analytics and ADH data,” Arielle Garcia, COO at ad watchdog group Check My Ads, tells The Current. “I look forward to seeing what this might look like, in particular as it relates to Performance Max.”
In the wake of an Adalytics report that alleged Google and Amazon served ads on a website hosting child sexual abuse material, transparency has never been more important.
Government lawyers also asserted in the filing that Google is using privacy as a shield against sharing data.
“Google seeks to wield this information as both a sword and a shield by refusing to provide access to data but also refusing to commit to not using such data in its defense. Google claims that it is too burdensome to merely identify what user data it collects and uses in three processes. Plaintiffs disagree,” the DOJ lawyers wrote.
2. A look at the Trump admin’s antitrust stances
The new administration made few changes to the initial remedies, aside from dropping a proposal for Alphabet to sell its AI investments and easing requirements for Android to be sold.
Filed in 2020 during Donald Trump’s first term, the antitrust lawsuit’s continuation under Trump’s second administration wasn’t necessarily a given.
“This might be the most important signal yet of continuity on antitrust,” Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter).
Gail Slater, Trump’s nominee for antitrust enforcement, has yet to be confirmed but told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would pursue high-profile cases against Google and Apple. Axios reports she’s well known in Washington tech policy circles.
“Regulation is often necessitated by high concentration in certain markets,” Slater said at her hearing. “Antitrust enforcement is the tool we use to stop those markets from tipping into the need for regulation.” She continued that “antitrust enforcement is a scalpel, and regulation is often a sledgehammer.”
Vice President JD Vance also has a connection to the issue, having called for the tech giant to be broken up during his campaign last year.
3. Holding strong on Chrome
The DOJ is standing by its demand that Google sell its Chrome browser: “Google must divest the Chrome browser — an important search access point — to provide an opportunity for a new rival to operate a significant gateway to search the internet, free of Google’s monopoly control.”
According to the government, Chrome is central to Google’s monopoly in search, handling more than 30% of search inquiries and enabling the company to collect vast amounts of user data.
“It is encouraging to see that the DOJ is standing firm on Chrome divestiture, which serves as a key channel for distribution and data, both central to Google’s dominance,” Check My Ads’ Garcia says.
In April, Judge Mehta will preside over a two-week hearing to finalize remedies, with a ruling expected by August. Experts anticipate Google will appeal.
In the last major tech antitrust ruling two decades ago, a judge ordered Microsoft to spin off its Internet Explorer browser. But that decision was overturned on appeals, and Microsoft avoided a breakup.