ARIZONA — Attorney General Kris Mayes, alongside the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of state attorneys general, has proposed sweeping remedies to dismantle Google’s alleged monopoly over the online search market. This bipartisan effort seeks to restore competition in the digital marketplace, giving consumers greater choice and ensuring fair business practices.
“This bipartisan effort reflects a shared commitment to restoring fair competition in the digital marketplace,” said Attorney General Mayes. “By ending Google’s illegal monopoly, we can ensure consumers have real choices and that businesses can compete on a level playing field.”
The antitrust case dates back to 2020 when a coalition of 38 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit accusing Google of using anticompetitive contracts to dominate general search services and online advertising. This lawsuit paralleled a federal antitrust case filed by the DOJ the same year. Both cases alleged that Google’s practices harmed competition, stifled innovation, and ultimately harmed consumers and advertisers.
In August 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google had violated federal antitrust laws by maintaining its dominance in search and search advertising through unlawful means. This decision marked a significant victory for regulators and set the stage for the current remedies aimed at breaking Google’s market grip.
The proposed remedies target the structural and behavioral practices that have allegedly allowed Google to dominate the search market. Key measures include:
- Ending Default Agreements
Google would be barred from securing exclusive distribution contracts that make its search engine the default on devices, browsers, or platforms. This aims to provide rival search engines an opportunity to compete on equal footing. - Divestiture of Chrome Browser
Google would be required to divest its Chrome browser, which accounts for significant internet traffic and serves as a gateway for its search engine dominance. This separation is intended to prevent Chrome from being used to reinforce Google’s search and advertising monopolies. - Divestiture of Android
If Google fails to comply with the proposed remedies or if the remedies prove ineffective, regulators may require Google to separate Android from its other business lines to reduce market concentration. - Data Sharing with Rivals
Google would be required to share certain data and insights obtained through its monopoly with competing search engines. This measure aims to foster competition and innovation while protecting user privacy through strict safeguards. - Prohibiting Self-Preferencing
Google would be prohibited from prioritizing its own services on platforms like Android. It would also be barred from degrading the quality of rival services or interfering with their distribution. - Publisher Control over Data
Publishers would gain the right to opt out of having their data collected by Google for AI training or generative AI applications. This provision addresses growing concerns about data privacy and AI-related power consolidation. - Public Education Campaign
The states propose that Google fund a campaign to educate consumers on its past illegal practices and highlight available alternatives in search engines. - Technical Oversight Committee
A five-member independent technical committee would oversee the implementation and enforcement of these remedies for a decade, ensuring compliance and accountability.
If implemented, the proposed remedies would mark one of the most significant antitrust interventions in the technology sector since the Microsoft case in the late 1990s. By eliminating exclusivity agreements and requiring divestitures, regulators hope to create a more competitive environment that fosters innovation and diversifies consumer choices.
Smaller search engine providers stand to gain from increased access to distribution channels and the removal of barriers imposed by Google’s exclusive agreements. The data-sharing requirement could further enhance competition by enabling rivals to improve their algorithms and services.
Opponents of the proposed remedies caution that breaking up major assets such as Chrome or Android could lead to unintended consequences. These include potential disruptions to ecosystems relied upon by billions of users and increased costs for consumers. Others argue that such measures might reduce efficiency and innovation in Google’s services.
Despite these concerns, proponents assert that intervention is necessary to restore competitive balance in the digital marketplace. They argue that without such measures, dominant firms like Google will continue to exploit their market power and stifle competition.
The court has scheduled a hearing on the proposed remedies for April 22–May 2, 2025. During this period, Google will have the opportunity to contest the measures and present its arguments. The final judgment will determine the implementation of these remedies and their long-term impact on Google and the broader tech industry.
—Jeremy Webb
