Efforts by U.S. antitrust regulators to force Alphabet Inc. to sell its Google Chrome browser and impose restrictions on its search dominance are expected to encounter significant legal and political hurdles, experts suggest.
Following an August ruling that Google illegally monopolized the search market, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed sweeping remedies during a Wednesday court hearing. These include divesting Chrome, sharing data and search results with competitors, and potentially selling Android software. Alphabet’s shares fell by as much as 7% in response, marking the steepest single-day decline since January.
The DOJ’s proposals aim to reshape how information is accessed online, but analysts warn the measures could be seen as overly ambitious. “It would strike me as an over-ask,” said Kevin Walkush of Jensen Investment Management. He added that the legal battle is likely to drag on for years, citing precedent from the DOJ’s failed attempt to break up Microsoft in the early 2000s.
Google has criticized the DOJ’s approach as “unprecedented government overreach,” claiming the proposals could harm consumers, developers, and small businesses. The company argued that user privacy and funding for initiatives like Mozilla’s browser, which features Google Search, would be negatively impacted.
The political climate could also play a role in shaping the case. While the Trump administration initially filed the antitrust case against Google, the former president recently hinted he may oppose breaking up the company, citing concerns over competition with China in technology sectors like artificial intelligence.
Chrome’s Central Role in Google’s Ecosystem
Google Chrome, which commands around two-thirds of the global browser market, is a critical part of Alphabet’s ecosystem, funneling valuable user data into its ad-targeting and search operations. Analysts argue that Chrome’s value diminishes as a standalone product, making its sale a complicated remedy for addressing search market monopolization.
“The reason why it’s valuable to Google is because it enhances its ad and search businesses,” said Megan Gray, a former general counsel at search rival DuckDuckGo.
Critics of the DOJ’s approach argue that a Chrome divestiture would fail to address Google’s alleged search monopoly. Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, noted that courts generally expect remedies to directly address antitrust concerns. “Divesting Chrome does absolutely nothing to address this concern,” he said.
Broader Implications
The DOJ has also proposed banning Google from incentivizing partnerships that give its search engine preferential treatment. This includes Google’s multibillion-dollar deal with Apple, which makes Google Search the default on iPhones.
Other proposals include licensing search data to competitors and mandating data-sharing, which analysts believe could be transformative for industries such as journalism. However, the long-term impact remains uncertain pending clarity on the terms.
While the DOJ faces an uphill battle in implementing its proposed remedies, experts agree the case could reshape the future of online search and digital competition.
