Google has proposed an alternative solution to the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) demand to sell its popular Chrome browser as part of a significant antitrust crackdown. The tech giant, on Friday filed a 12-page proposal suggesting restrictions on its licensing practices, rather than a forced breakup, to address concerns over its dominance in the technology market.
This development follows a pivotal ruling in August, where U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopoly. The decision marked a major turning point in the DOJ’s efforts to curb the tech giant’s influence, accusing it of anti-competitive practices that stifled innovation and competition.
In November, the DOJ ramped up its efforts, calling for drastic measures, including the sale of Chrome and banning Google from striking deals to make its search engine the default on smartphones.
The government’s proposals also included restricting Google’s ability to leverage its Android operating system to secure favorable treatment for its products.
Google’s counterproposal aims to address antitrust concerns without dismantling its business. The company suggested that Judge Mehta impose restrictions on its licensing practices, particularly prohibiting it from requiring favorable distribution or treatment of its software as a condition for licensing popular apps such as Chrome, Google Play, or Gemini.
READ ALSO: U.S. Approves $571.3 Million Defense Assistance for Taiwan
In the filing, Google emphasized that it should not be allowed to compel mobile device manufacturers or carriers to pre-install its search software or designate it as the default option. However, the proposal allows Google to continue negotiating agreements that involve payments for app distribution, placement, and licensing under fair terms.
The proposed order states: “Nothing in this Final Judgment shall otherwise prohibit Google from providing consideration to a mobile device manufacturer or wireless carrier with respect to any Google product or service in exchange for such entity’s distribution, placement on any access point, promotion, or licensing of that Google product or service.“
This approach highlights Google’s willingness to reform certain practices without resorting to a breakup, which it argues would be disruptive and unnecessary.
READ ALSO: Former IMF Chief Rodrigo Rato Sentenced to Prison
The DOJ’s call to dismantle Google marks a significant shift in how the U.S. government approaches tech regulation. For years, regulators avoided drastic actions against tech giants, even as companies like Google, Apple, and Amazon grew into some of the most powerful corporations in the world.
The last major breakup of a tech company occurred more than two decades ago when regulators attempted to divide Microsoft, a case that ultimately ended in a settlement. The DOJ’s renewed aggression against Google signals a broader movement to rein in the influence of Big Tech.
A focal point of the antitrust trial was Google’s confidential agreements with smartphone manufacturers, including Apple. These deals reportedly involved massive payments to secure Google’s position as the default search engine on browsers, iPhones, and other devices.
Judge Mehta concluded that these agreements provided Google with unrivaled access to user data, cementing its dominance in the search engine market. The DOJ argued that this created insurmountable barriers for competitors, limiting user choice and stifling innovation.
AFP
Discover more from Cine critique
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.