DOJ Unveils Plan to End Google's Illegal Search Monopoly: Chrome Divestiture and More

In a landmark antitrust case, the United States Department of Justice and co-plaintiff states have unveiled sweeping remedies designed to break up Google's search monopoly. The proposed solutions, presented on April 21, 2025, come after a federal court ruled that "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly."

Google's Feedback Loop of Dominance

At the heart of the DOJ's argument is what they call Google's "feedback loop" - a self-reinforcing cycle that maintains the company's monopoly power. This loop works through:

1. Defaults: Exclusive distribution agreements with Apple and Android device makers
2. Searches: These defaults drive massive query volume
3. Data: User queries generate data that improves search quality
4. Quality: Better quality attracts more users and advertisers
5. Money: Advertising revenue funds more exclusive agreements

Breaking this cycle requires addressing multiple points of leverage, which explains the DOJ's multi-pronged approach.

Five Key Remedy Categories

Here's what the DOJ is proposing.

1. Distribution Remedies

The most immediate impact would come from prohibiting Google from making payments for default search placement. This targets Google's massive agreements with Apple and other device makers.

Former Google SVP and Neeva founder Sridhar Ramaswamy testified that these payments "basically freeze the ecosystem in place effectively," preventing competitors from gaining traction regardless of product quality.

The DOJ's proposal takes a forward-looking approach, defining search access points as "any product or service where a user can enter a query and receive a response that includes information from a general search engine." This definition encompasses not just browsers but also widgets, search apps, and even AI tools like Google's Gemini.

2. Chrome Divestiture

Perhaps the most dramatic remedy is forcing Google to divest Chrome, its market-leading web browser. According to the DOJ's evidence, Chrome accounts for 35% of all Google search queries and drives billions in search revenue annually.

The DOJ brought in corporate M&A experts who testified that Chrome generates sufficient revenue to be an attractive acquisition target and could operate independently from Google. Structural separations like this provide the cleanest and most effective antitrust remedies.

3. Data Sharing Remedies

The DOJ also seeks to address Google's data advantage, which competitors described as nearly insurmountable. Nick Turley, Head of Product for ChatGPT at OpenAI, testified that even with their resources, they could only achieve about 80% coverage compared to Google, noting "the remaining 20 percent will take years" to develop.

The proposed remedies would require Google to share:

• User-side data to improve search ranking
• Search index coverage to help competitors train models
• Ad performance data to enable competition in advertising

4. Advertising Remedies

The remedies address Google's search advertising monopoly by requiring more transparency and control for advertisers. Internal Google documents revealed that the company withheld data from advertisers in part because "more granularity of data" would make it "harder for us to pursue our pricing work" as advertisers could "better understand the distribution and actively work against it."

Greater transparency in digital advertising markets is essential for both advertisers and competing platforms.

5. Anticircumvention Provisions

To ensure Google complies with these remedies, the DOJ proposes a technical committee similar to the one used in the Microsoft antitrust case, which Judge Kollar-Kotelly called "ingenious" and "a model for monitoring."

The DOJ also included a "contingent Android divestiture" that would trigger if competition hasn't substantially increased within five years - a powerful incentive for Google to ensure the remedies succeed.

Google's Objections Fall Flat

Google raised several objections to these remedies, focusing on privacy, security, causation, and competition concerns. However, the DOJ presented evidence challenging each argument:

• Privacy: Google's own privacy expert admitted privacy-enhancing techniques could adequately protect user data while enabling competition.
• Security: When asked, "Is Google the only U.S. company capable of providing data security to users?" CEO Sundar Pichai answered, "No."
• Causation: The DOJ cited legal precedent establishing that plaintiffs need not reconstruct "a world absent the defendant's exclusionary conduct" to justify remedies.
• Competition: The DOJ presented evidence that Google's competitive advantages weren't based solely on product quality but on artificial barriers to entry.

The Battle for Search's Future

These proposed remedies signal an aggressive new approach to tech regulation, echoing the Justice Department's historic Microsoft case, which many credit with enabling the internet innovation boom of the early 2000s.

For marketers and advertisers, these changes could dramatically reshape search marketing. Without Google's default search agreements, search traffic could fragment across multiple engines, requiring more diversified strategies. A divested Chrome browser might introduce new features and options that change how users discover content online.

Most significantly, the data sharing provisions could accelerate development of competitive search and AI technologies by giving rivals access to the data they need to improve quality. This could lead to a more vibrant ecosystem with multiple specialized search options rather than a single dominant player.

What Happens Next?

The remedies proposal marks the beginning of a new phase in the case. The court will now consider Google's response and potentially amend the proposed remedies before issuing a final judgment. Google is expected to appeal any adverse ruling, potentially extending the timeline for implementation.

Antitrust remedies cases typically take 1-2 years to resolve after liability is established, meaning final implementation could be several years away.

In the meantime, the proposal itself may already be influencing Google's behavior, as the company works to demonstrate that less drastic remedies would be sufficient to restore competition.

For businesses and consumers, the outcome of this case will determine who controls the primary gateway to information in the digital age - and whether that gateway will remain dominated by a single company or open to diverse alternatives.