The U.S. Department of Justice has proposed a historic breakup of Google, aiming to compel the tech giant to sell its Chrome web browser and prevent its Android operating system from favoring its own search engine.
The move comes after a federal court ruled in August that Google had maintained an abusive monopoly over the online search market for the past decade.
In a 23-page document filed late Wednesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) outlined its recommendations to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta. Among the most significant measures is the forced sale of Chrome, the world's most widely used web browser which has billions of users and more than half the global browser market share.
The DOJ argues that divesting Chrome would "permanently stop Google's control of this critical search access point and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet."
Restrictions on Google's Android smartphone software could involve unbundling Google services from Android and ending exclusive agreements that make Google the default search engine on devices from manufacturers such as Apple.
Such agreements currently contribute to Google controlling about 90 percent of the online search market and 95 percent on smartphones.
Responding similarly to the DOJ's previous suggestions, Google has strongly criticized these latest proposals, calling them "radical" and warning that they would harm consumers, developers, and American technological leadership.
"As just one example, the DOJ's proposal would literally require us to install not one but two separate choice screens before you could access Google Search on a [Google] Pixel phone you bought," Kent Walker, Google's Chief Legal Officer, wrote earlier Thursday on Google's official blog, The Keyword.
"And the design of those choice screens would have to be approved by the Technical Committee. And that's just a small part of it. We wish we were making this up, " he added.
Walker went on to say that the DOJ's approach would "result in unprecedented government overreach" and "harm innovative services... whose businesses depend on charging Google for Search placement."
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, stated that the DOJ is pushing an agenda that "goes far beyond the legal issues in this case."
She added that the government's intervention would "harm consumers, developers, and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed."
The proposed breakup has elicited a range of reactions from industry observers. Some analysts question the practicality of separating Chrome from Google. John Gruber, author of tech blog Daring Fireball, likened the idea to "saying I have to sell my left foot. It's very valuable to me, but of no value to anyone on its own."
"This may be one of the dumbest moves ever," Max Weinbach, analyst at Creative Strategies, Inc., posted on X (formerly Twitter).
"Google maintains Chromium for quite a few other ISAs. Google doesn't necessarily make money off of chromium, so forcing them to sell means you essentially kill it and Google forks their own version of Chrome to stop building for the ecosystem," he added.
Others see the DOJ's actions as necessary to restore competition in the search market.
Kamyl Bazbaz, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs at DuckDuckGo, a rival that has testified against Google, stated that "undoing Google's overlapping and widespread illegal conduct over more than a decade requires more than contract restrictions: it requires a range of remedies to create enduring competition."
Newsweek contacted Google via email for comment.
If the court accepts the DOJ's recommendations, the breakup could significantly alter the technology industry's landscape. Divesting Chrome could disrupt Google's integrated ecosystem of services, potentially affecting user experience and the company's revenue model, which heavily relies on advertising.
Extracting Chrome from Google might pose challenges in finding a buyer and maintaining the browser's viability as a stand-alone product.
"Chrome is not a stand-alone business," noted Daring Fireball's Gruber. "They're both just appendages of Google that serve only as distribution channels for the advertising Google shows in search results."
The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on potential remedies in April 2025, with Judge Mehta aiming to issue a final decision before Labor Day. Google plans to present its own proposals on December 20.