Google search antitrust case: What the government wants | MarTech (2025)

Chat with MarTechBot

The U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states unveiledtheir proposed remedies yesterday to dismantleGoogle’s illegal monopoly in search and search advertising. These includebreaking off Chrome and banning default search payments.

The remedies break down into five categories meant to enable and increase competition:

• Distribution remedies. Ending payments that “freeze the ecosystem in place,” including Google’s multi-billion-dollar payments to Apple and Android device makers.
• Chrome divestiture. Separate Chrome from Google –organizationally and financially. The browser accounts for 35% of all Google search queries and drives “billions in Search revenue” (the actual number is redacted). The DOJ also pointed out that Google “underinvests” in Chrome.
• Data remedies. Require Google to share user-side data, search index coverage, and ad performance data –essential tools that help competitors train models, improve search results, and better compete.
• Advertising remedies. Increase transparency and control for advertisers while helping rival ad platforms compete more effectively. Specifically, Google would have to provide more information to advertisers in search query reports, and let advertisers opt out of broad and automated keyword matching.
• Anti-circumvention provisions. Establish a technical committee to monitor Google’s compliance. This section includes a “contingent Android divestiture.” If competition hasn’t improved within five years, Google could be forced to spin off Android.

Why we care. If even a few of these remedies move forward, it could profoundly reshape how people access Google, how advertisers spend and how competitors evolve in the search and generative AI markets.

Dig deeper: Why Google lost: The DoJ’s case in 11 slides

What Google is saying. In a blog post, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for Regulatory Affairs, said:

• The Justice Department’s proposals are too extreme and rooted in past grievances, rather than current technological realities. Google views the DOJ’s plan as heavy-handed and part of an “interventionist agenda”.
• Forcing a breakup could harm U.S. consumers, the economy, and technological leadership, particularly in the global race with China in artificial intelligence. Google argues that the U.S. needs the company intact to compete with rivals like China’s DeepSeek.
• Divesting Chrome could have negative consequences for privacy and security. Google suggests that Chrome could become less secure, and the Chromium project might falter. This could also lead to a decrease in browser choice.
• Limits on how Google can integrate its AI into its products could hamper its AI efforts and slow down American innovation at a critical time. Google suggests the case is too focused on the past search market and not the rapid changes in AI.

The opening slides.United States & Co-Plaintiff States v. Google LLC (redacted public version)(PDF).

Add MarTech to your Google News feed.

About the author