Google pushes back against DOJ’s ‘interventionist’ remedies in antitrust case
Google has offered up its own proposal in a recent antitrust case that saw the US Department of Justice argue that Google must sell its Chrome browser.
US District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August that Google had acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search, with the DOJ then proposing a number of remedies, including the sale of Chrome, the spinoff of its Android operating system, and a prohibition on entering into exclusionary search agreements with browser and phone companies.
Google filed an alternativee proposal Friday, with the company’s vice president of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mullholland claiming in a blog post that the DOJ’s proposal reflects an “interventionist agenda” that “goes far beyond what the Court’s decision is actually about.”
Mulholland added that the “bigger problem is that DOJ’s proposal would harm American consumers and undermine America’s global technology leadership at a critical juncture — such as by requiring us to share people’s private search queries with foreign and domestic rivals, and restricting our ability to innovate and improve our products.”
As an alternative, Google proposes that it still be allowed to make search deals with companies like Apple and Mozilla, but they should have the option to set different defaults on different platforms (for example, iPhone vs. iPad) and in different browsing modes.
The company also proposes that Android device manufacturers could have more flexibility pre-loading multiple search engines, as well as with pre-loading Google apps without Google Search or Chrome.
Judge Mehta is expected to rule on remedies next year, with a hearing scheduled for April. Mulholland said Google isn’t just planning to negotiate over remedies — it also plans to appeal Mehta’s August ruling against the company. But she wrote, “Before we file our appeal, the legal process requires that the parties outline what remedies would best respond to the Court’s decision.”
