The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is intensifying its legal battle against Google, seeking to force the tech giant to part ways with its dominant Chrome browser. The Google Chrome antitrust case is one of the most significant legal actions in the tech industry, aiming to curb Google’s alleged monopolistic practices in online search and digital advertising.
In a proposal filed on Friday, the DOJ’s antitrust division, led by acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi, outlined remedies that include the separation of Google Chrome from its parent company, Alphabet. This filing is part of an ongoing lawsuit that began in 2020 and has gained momentum over the years.
The DOJ and over 45 states allege that Google has used its Chrome browser to solidify its dominance in search and online advertising. By paying third parties to set Google as the default search engine on Chrome, the company has reportedly stifled competition and maintained a near-monopoly in digital advertising.
The lawsuit asserts that Google’s agreements with tech giants like Apple and Samsung—amounting to billions of dollars annually—have restricted market competition. In his August 2024 opinion, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta stated that Google’s payments to maintain Chrome as the default search engine have had “anticompetitive effects.”
According to Mehta, Google’s actions have enabled it to generate monopoly profits in general search services and digital advertising. In 2021 alone, Google allegedly paid $26.3 billion to various companies, including AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, to ensure its search engine remained the default option for users.
“The conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits,” Mehta wrote, adding that Google has “unlawfully used distribution agreements to thwart competition and maintain its dominance.”
The Google Chrome antitrust case has raised broader concerns about market freedom and fair competition. The plaintiffs argue that Google’s tactics present a serious threat to the digital economy by limiting consumer choices and obstructing potential competitors from gaining traction in the search and advertising markets.
“Google’s conduct presents genuine danger to freedom in the marketplace and to robust competition in our economy,” the DOJ stated in its latest filing.
If Google is forced to sell Chrome, the estimated price tag could reach $20 billion, according to Bloomberg. Such a move would significantly alter the tech landscape and challenge Google’s long-standing control over web browsing and search integration.
Google has strongly opposed the DOJ’s demand for divestiture, arguing that it can comply with the court’s rulings through alternative measures. The company has suggested modifying its licensing agreements with Apple and other manufacturers to remove exclusive conditions related to Chrome and Google Search.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for Google and its parent company Alphabet, criticized the DOJ’s proposal in a December blog post. She claimed that the government’s demands extend “far beyond what the court’s decision is actually about—our agreements with partners to distribute search.”
According to Google, the DOJ’s proposed remedies could harm American consumers and hinder technological advancements. “DOJ’s proposal would undermine America’s global technology leadership at a critical juncture by requiring us to share people’s private search queries with foreign and domestic rivals, and restricting our ability to innovate,” Mulholland wrote.
While the DOJ initially considered requiring Google to divest its artificial intelligence (AI) investments, the latest proposal has removed that requirement. Instead, Google must notify authorities before making any future AI-related acquisitions or investments. This decision reflects the growing significance of AI in search technology and its potential implications for market competition.
The Google Chrome antitrust case is reminiscent of previous antitrust lawsuits against major tech companies. The case was first initiated during former President Donald Trump’s administration, marking one of the most aggressive government actions against Big Tech since the DOJ sued Microsoft in the late 1990s.
The Microsoft case, which resulted in a settlement, set a precedent for antitrust enforcement in the tech industry. The ongoing case against Google signals a renewed commitment by U.S. regulators to scrutinize large technology firms and their market practices.
Legal experts believe the DOJ’s proposal is a “maximalist opening position” designed to create room for negotiation. Paul Swanson, an antitrust litigation partner at Holland & Hart LLP, told Wired that while the DOJ is pushing for a strong stance, the final ruling may involve a compromise.
“The one through-line here is that this administration wants to be perceived as being tough on tech, but also not slow the growth of America’s tech industries,” Swanson explained. “So they may signal more action than what they ultimately want.”
The upcoming hearing next month will be crucial in determining the fate of Google Chrome and its role in Google’s search dominance. Judge Mehta is expected to deliver a final ruling in August 2025, which could reshape the competitive dynamics of the search and advertising industries.
