WASHINGTON, D.C. (6/4/2025) – Last week, a federal court heard closing arguments in the remedy trial for the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) bid to break Google Search. Concerningly, the government asked the court to consider a number of remedies that would harm consumers and weaken dynamic digital markets to the benefit of Google’s large business competitors.
During closing arguments, the court acknowledged these serious concerns and expressed skepticism that the DOJ’s proposals would benefit competition and consumers.
The DOJ’s remedies put consumer privacy at risk:
During the remedy trial, the DOJ pushed the court to give Google’s competitors, including leading AI companies, access to broad swathes of consumers’ web query search data and personally identifiable information. The court acknowledged that this proposal raises serious privacy concerns and asked the government’s lawyers, “Why (share) any user data at all?” Additionally, the court questioned whether top AI companies should have access to sensitive user data, pointing out that the DOJ “want(s) to bring in this other technology into this definition of a general search engine market that I’m not sure quite fits.”
Heavy-handed government proposals fail to increase competition:
The court also expressed concern about the DOJ’s plan to mandate Google spin off Chrome, acknowledging that this heavy-handed remedy fails to increase competition in the browser marketplace. Per Bloomberg:
“One possibility is that Chrome is acquired by a company that then self-preferences its own search product, Mehta said. Another is that it isn’t purchased by a company that has its own search product and it simply reinserts Google. ‘So there’s no competition period, so that’s not really going to enhance competition,’ he said.”
The Justice Department’s proposals threaten to make dynamic digital markets less competitive:
Other remedies pushed by the DOJ would do further harm to dynamic digital markets, according to the court. This includes the government’s plan to bar Google from competing for default search engine contracts that browser developers and device manufacturers rely on for revenue. Mozilla, a company that competes with Google, filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that this plan would cause widespread market harm. The court pressed the DOJ about these anti-competitive outcomes, pointing out that “every single distribution partner said, ‘This would harm us.’ Some have gone so far to suggest this would put them out of business.”
Government remedies risk undermining innovation in emerging technologies:
The DOJ asked the court to consider a number of remedies that would harm research in development into new technologies. The court acknowledged these concerns, asking if “[any forward-looking disclosure requirements would] reduce Google’s incentives to innovate? We’re not looking to kneecap Google.” These concerns about AI and innovation point to a broader concern with the government’s case, which the court honed in on. To claim Google is a monopoly, the DOJ needed to narrowly define the market as only general search engines. How then can they seek remedies for generative AI? The court pointed out this tension in a question to the DOJ’s lawyers: “We spent a lot of time in this remedies phase talking about A.I. If it’s not part of the search market, how is it associated with the legal framework, with the remedies that you’re asking for?”
Leading legal analysts and tech industry experts have echoed the court’s concerns and cautioned that heavy-handed remedies would harm American workers and consumers and undercut the United States’ competitive edge on the global stage.
Below are additional comments from experts on the risks posed by the government’s proposed remedies in the Google Search case:
“The government’s proposed remedies are detached from its case, and would work primarily to the advantage of competitors. Structural remedies that weaken US companies risk handing an economic advantage to adversaries abroad. U.S. antitrust policy was meant to encourage robust competition, not pick winners and losers.”
Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute:
“Worryingly, the DOJ’s proposal includes no binding privacy standards, no oversight mechanisms, and no criteria for who will qualify to access and use this data. Rather than articulate to the court for its careful consideration how such an unprecedented intrusion into Americans’ privacy should be managed, the government instead proposes to pass this question off to a ‘technical committee.’”
SIIA:
“There are acute privacy concerns for users, who even DOJ witnesses admit choose Google Search because it’s the best product on the market. Google CEO Sundar Pichai pointed out consumers trust Search with sensitive data. The DOJ’s proposal puts that information at risk. Additionally, this DOJ proposal creates a perverse disincentive to businesses. What company will spend time and money innovating if the government is likely to punish success by letting rivals free ride off of those investments?”
“The DOJ’s proposed ‘fixes’ put Google’s technological breakthroughs and innovations in jeopardy. One remedy demands Google hand over search data to competitors, a forced data transfer that ignores user privacy. Another would break off Chrome. The result won’t be more choice. It’ll be a fractured, less private, more expensive internet. The court should consider that risk.”
The Don’t Break What Works campaign is powered by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). Learn more here.