Selling Chrome Won’t Be Enough To End Google’s Search Monopoly

To end Google’s illegal control over how Americans search the web, the US Department of Justice wants the tech giant to end its lucrative partnership with Apple, share data about competitors with advertisers, and “immediately and comprehensively decommission Chrome,” Google is a search engine that controls more than half of the US market. The government wants Google to sell Chrome to an authorized buyer, saying the divestiture “will open up private markets to competition, remove barriers to entry, and ensure that there are no practices that could lead to illegal handling.”

The recommendations are part of a detailed plan that federal lawyers submitted Wednesday to US District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, DC as part of an antitrust case against Google that began back in 2020. Next August, Mehta is expected to decide which one is in the middle of this case. Possible remedies Google will have to do to loosen its grip on the search market.

But the tech giant could still appeal, delaying enforcement of the judge’s order for years to come. Google has argued that the proposed proposals will put the privacy and security of its users at risk and make its services less convenient.

Among people who have worked for Google or are closely associated with the company, there is little agreement that any of the proposed remedies will significantly change user behavior or make the search engine market more competitive. Four former Google executives who oversaw teams working on Chrome, search, and ads told WIRED that competitor innovation, not government intervention, remains the surest way to unseat Google as the nation’s dominant Internet search provider. “You can’t discount a low-quality product,” said one former Chrome business leader, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect working relationships.

But the former Chrome engineering lead admitted that the search engine would have been a better product if it had been out of sight of Google’s other business interests. They allege that Google blocked the introduction of user-friendly features because they would have hurt the company’s advertising revenue, which depends on people clicking on ads in their search results. “Why isn’t autocomplete better? Why is the ‘new tab’ page not working very well? Why isn’t browser history better?” said the former leader who also spoke on condition of anonymity. Answer: “There are all these incentives to get users to search.” Google did not respond to a request for comment on the assertion.

Still, competitors who would benefit from even a small reduction in Google’s power are optimistic about the expected remedies. “I see strong benefits in placement [Chrome] back into public hands,” said Guillermo Rauch, CEO of Vercel, a company that develops tools for websites, many of which depend on human search and advertising revenue controlled by Google. “Strengthening that relationship with corporate executives is always a healthy thing,” Rauch said.