U.S. DOJ Seeks to Break Up Google’s Monopoly

A new court filing aims to break up Google’s Chrome browser and address its alleged monopolistic practices.

The plaintiffs in an ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Google have submitted a revised proposed final judgment for the judge to consider. This follows an earlier ruling in which the court found Google guilty of illegally maintaining its monopoly through anticompetitive behaviour.

The lawsuit, led by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and multiple State Attorneys General, argues that Google has sustained its dominance in search services and text advertising by engaging in unfair practices. To counter this, the latest filing outlines four key measures to curb Google’s monopolistic hold on the industry.

Separating Chrome from Google’s business – This could involve selling Chrome or spinning it off into an independent company to reduce Google’s influence over the browser market.
Restricting Google’s exclusive deals – The proposal seeks to limit Google’s payments to companies like Apple for making Google the default search engine, which has given it an unfair advantage.
Preventing Google from favouring its own products – The filing calls for an end to self-preferencing in search results and other services to create a fairer market for competitors.
Enhancing transparency in Google’s advertising and data practices – The lawsuit demands that Google provide fairer access to key advertising and data insights, ensuring a more level playing field for competitors.

If implemented, these measures could reshape the digital advertising and search landscape, potentially reducing Google’s dominance and fostering greater competition.

The proposal calls for continuous oversight of Google’s advertising and data practices, ensuring greater transparency through mandatory reporting. The goal is to create a fairer digital advertising landscape by holding Google accountable for its operations and preventing it from leveraging its dominance in ways that harm competitors and advertisers.

Mandatory Reporting for Transparency

Under the proposed measures, Google would be required to submit monthly reports to a Technical Committee and the plaintiffs, detailing any changes made to its search text ads auction. These reports would also need to be publicly disclosed, allowing advertisers and competitors to stay informed about alterations in how Google manages and displays ads. This requirement aims to prevent Google from making undisclosed changes that could disadvantage businesses relying on its advertising services.

Ensuring Fair Access to Advertising Data

The proposal also includes strong enforcement mechanisms to prevent Google from restricting advertisers’ access to their own data. Specifically, it states that Google must not impose limitations on advertisers who wish to export their advertising data in real-time through an interface or API access. This provision is critical because, without it, advertisers could be forced to rely solely on Google’s internal reporting tools, which may not always provide the level of detail or immediacy needed to optimise campaigns.

By granting real-time access, advertisers would be able to:

Analyse ad performance without delays, allowing them to make immediate adjustments to their campaigns.
Retain full control over their historical data, ensuring they are not locked into Google’s ecosystem.
Use third-party analytics tools to cross-check Google’s reporting and verify campaign effectiveness.

Preventing Google from Imposing New Restrictions

The legal filing stresses that Google must not introduce new policies that could undermine these transparency requirements. In the past, concerns have been raised that Google has restricted certain data points or changed auction rules without clear disclosure. The proposed enforcement would ensure that Google cannot arbitrarily introduce changes that make it harder for advertisers to access the information they need.

Regulating Google’s Business Practices

Beyond transparency and data access, the filing outlines a set of government-imposed restrictions and operational changes that would reshape Google’s advertising business. These proposed remedies were drafted in response to the court’s earlier ruling that Google engaged in monopolistic practices by maintaining its dominance in search and digital advertising through anti-competitive behaviour.

However, it is important to note that this document is not a final judgment. Rather, it serves as a proposal for how Google should be regulated or restructured. The final decision now rests with the court, which will determine the appropriate penalties, restrictions, or structural changes needed to ensure a more competitive online advertising market.

If approved, these measures could mark a significant shift in how Google operates, setting a precedent for regulating dominant tech companies and ensuring greater fairness in digital advertising.