Now that Judge Amit Mehta has determined that Google is a monopoly, lawyers for the Department of Justice have begun to propose ways to address the company’s illegal behaviour and restore competition in the search engine industry.
In a fresh 32-page document (see below), they stated that they are investigating “behavioural and structural remedies.”
That covers everything from implementing a consent order to monitor the company’s actions to requiring it to sell off portions of its business, such as Chrome, Android, or Google Play.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Sony Reverses Decision On Helldivers 2 PSN Requirement For PC Players
Similarly, Plaintiffs are considering behavioural and structural remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features — including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence — over rivals or new entrants.
But the first problem cited in the filing is Google’s control of search distribution and the amount of money it pays to be the default option on platforms like Apple’s iPhone.
The DOJ lawyers write that “rivals cannot compete for these distribution channels because Google’s monopoly-funded revenue share payments disincentivize its partners from diverting queries to Google’s rivals.”
Other fixes the DOJ considers include things that affect user behaviour, like requiring “Google to provide support for educational-awareness campaigns that would enhance the ability of users to choose the general search engine that suits them best.”
In a response on its blog late Tuesday, Google claimed the proposed framework “goes well beyond the legal scope of the Court’s decision about Search distribution contracts,” and that “[s]plitting off Chrome or Android would break them.”
Google claims that billions of people get online thanks to Chrome and Android existing as free products, and that “[f]ew companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do.”
