Google has countered a US Department of Justice (DOJ) proposal to force the sale of its Chrome browser, offering instead to address antitrust concerns by changing its software licensing practices.
In a court filing late Friday, Google suggested banning it from requiring mobile device makers to prioritise its apps—such as Chrome, Google Play, or Gemini—as a condition for licensing. This proposal is intended to address concerns about its alleged dominance without dismantling its business.
This comes in response to the DOJ’s November call for drastic action, including the sale of Chrome, as part of its crackdown on Google’s monopoly power. The DOJ also recommended banning exclusive deals that make Google the default search engine on devices and preventing the exploitation of its Android operating system for competitive advantage.
The case stems from a landmark antitrust trial in which US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August that Google held monopoly power. The current phase of the trial focuses on remedies for Google’s anticompetitive practices.
Google’s proposed solution seeks to avoid a breakup by focusing on licensing restrictions. It argued that while it should be barred from compelling favourable treatment of its apps, it should still be allowed to negotiate with device makers on terms for app distribution and placement.
The DOJ’s call to break up Google represents a significant shift in US regulatory policy, marking the most aggressive move against a tech giant since the failed attempt to dismantle Microsoft two decades ago.
Regardless of Judge Mehta’s ruling, the case is expected to face appeals that could extend the battle for years. A final decision might ultimately rest with the US Supreme Court.
Adding further uncertainty is the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, which will take over in January. Trump’s Justice Department could continue the case, seek a settlement, or even drop the matter entirely.
The trial revealed Google’s confidential agreements with major smartphone manufacturers, including Apple, where substantial payments ensured Google Search was the default option on browsers and devices.
Judge Mehta found that these arrangements gave Google unparalleled access to user data, bolstering its dominance in the search engine market. The DOJ argues this stifles competition and limits consumer choice, while Google maintains that its market position results from delivering superior services.
