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

To dismantle Google’s illegal monopoly over how Americans search the web, the US Department of Justice wants the tech giant to end its lucrative partnership with Apple, share a trove of proprietary data with competitors and advertisers, and “promptly and fully divest Chrome,” Google’s search engine that controls over half of the US market. The government wants Google to sell Chrome to a buyer it approves, arguing the divesture would “pry open the monopolized markets to competition, remove barriers to entry, and ensure there remain no practices likely to result in unlawful monopolization.”

The recommendations are part of a detailed plan that government attorneys submitted Wednesday to US district judge Amit Mehta in Washington, DC as part of a federal antitrust case against Google that started back in 2020. By next August, Mehta is expected to decide which of the possible remedies Google will be required to carry out to loosen its stranglehold on the search market.

But the tech giant could still appeal, delaying enforcement of the judge’s order years into the future. Google has previously argued that the expected proposals would put the privacy and security of its users at risk and make its services less convenient.

Among people who have worked for Google or partnered closely with the company, there’s little agreement on whether any of the proposed remedies would significantly shift 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 innovation by rivals, not interventions by the government, remains the surest way to unseat Google as the nation’s dominant internet search provider. “You can’t ram an inferior product down people’s throats,” says one former Chrome business leader, speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect professional relationships.

But a former Chrome engineering leader acknowledged that the search engine could have been a better product if it wasn’t beholden to Google’s other business interests. They allege that Google blocked the introduction of user-friendly features because they would have harmed the company’s advertising revenue, which depends on people clicking ads in their search results. “Why isn’t autocomplete better? Why isn’t the ‘new tab’ page’ more effective? Why isn’t browser history better?” says the ex-leader, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. The answer: “There’s all these incentives to get users to search.” Google didn’t respond to a request for comment on the assertion.

Still, competitors that stand to benefit from even a minor reduction in Google’s power are optimistic about the expected remedies. “I can see strong benefits in putting [Chrome] back in the hands of the community,” says Guillermo Rauch, CEO of Vercel, a company that develops tools for websites, many of which depend on search traffic and advertising revenue controlled by Google. “Moderating that relationship to the corporate overlords is always going to be a healthy thing,” Rauch says.

“A package of well-implemented and carefully monitored remedies, each designed to address a specific choke point, can work to create enduring competition in the search market,” Gabriel Weinberg, CEO of the rival search engine DuckDuckGo, wrote in a September blog post.

Google’s antitrust battle with the Department of Justice began under the first Trump administration in 2020. The federal government, as well as a number of states, accused the tech giant of using anticompetitive tactics to dominate the search market, suppressing Americans’ access to other search providers. The Biden administration moved forward with the case and filed another of its own—accusing Google of illegally monopolizing advertising technologies that millions of websites and apps use to generate revenue. Closing arguments in that case are scheduled for Monday.

Both cases remain unresolved, and it’s unclear to what extent the Justice Department will keep up the pressure on Google after Donald Trump returns to the White House. On the campaign trail, Trump made mixed comments about the tech giant. In October, he expressed concerns about its power, but suggested that imposing onerous conditions on the company could hamper US efforts to achieve tech supremacy over China.

Judge Mehta has set aside nearly two weeks starting in April to hear arguments from the government and Google about the proposed punishments. The new Trump administration’s approach toward Google should become more apparent at that point, and it’s possible that government attorneys will be less willing to defend the proposals released Wednesday.

The government is seeking to provide users with more choice over what search engines they use. It wants to end Google’s partnership with Apple, which receives tens of billions of dollars in search ad revenue for making Google the default search engine on iPhones. Google has similar deals with other companies, which also would be scuttled. Google would also have to make changes to how it preferences its own services on Android or else sell or be forced to sell Android.

To give competitors a leg up, the government wants Google to share data it collects with them about what people are searching for and the results they choose to click on. The argument is that potential rivals would then be able to match the information advantage Google has amassed over decades studying the behavior patterns of its billions of users.

Rauch, the Vercel CEO, believes that Google is unfairly using Chrome to direct people toward its AI chatbot, Gemini, as well as other services it owns, such as Google Docs, through a mix of nudges and incentives built into its search engine. “Google is stacking every advantage that they can by monopolizing this very important piece of software infrastructure,” Rauch says.

Turning over Chrome to a neutral steward like a nonprofit organization or an academic institution, Rauch says, would burst open the search box on the world’s most popular browser and give people access to a plethora of alternatives. Chrome already allows users to change their default search provider, but Google still nudges users back through alerts as they browse. “I could imagine, in a world where people are more equipped to choose rather than default, a lot of consumers might end up choosing Perplexity or ChatGPT, whereas today it’s a very roundabout thing,” Rausch says.

But financial and legal analysts have expressed doubts about how much the government’s proposals could really achieve. The former Google executives who spoke with WIRED are just as skeptical. Rajen Sheth, who oversaw parts of the Chrome business and now runs a software startup for building online courses, says users are gravitating toward what they are used to in what he believes is already an open marketplace. “Given the technology landscape and the different levers, are there things that will make a difference? It will be tough,” he says.

Getting access to Google’s proprietary data and having the opportunity to court iPhone users may help increase the odds people turn to alternative search engines. But Google also has unmatched computing infrastructure, unique data from sibling services such as Maps, and over a quarter century of brand recognition with consumers. “No matter how much you level the playing field, people are going to go to the best product for the job,” the former Chrome business leader says.

Former Google executives say what will supplant the company one day isn’t another traditional search engine, but something akin to ChatGPT that presents content to users in a more interactive way. That new technology isn’t fully developed yet, but it might be by the time the government’s lawsuit against Google is finally settled. That means Google’s place in the market could look vastly different before enforcement of the judge’s order even begins.