Americans everywhere use search engines to find information within seconds. With dozens of services to choose from, the current search marketplace encourages companies to innovate and allows consumers to select the search engine that best suits their needs. However, following the verdict in its case against Google, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is pushing for remedies that would force Google to divest some of its core services. Concerningly, the ramifications of the government’s proposed remedies would undermine competition and – most importantly – harm American consumers.
Unfortunately, the proposal in the Google Search case is not the first time the DOJ has intervened in a marketplace with actions that risk harming consumers. Earlier this year, the DOJ succeeded in blocking a merger between JetBlue and Spirit, two budget airline companies. The merger between JetBlue and Spirit would have provided these airlines with the resources to compete with the nation’s four largest air carriers and increase the availability of cheap flight options to American consumers. Instead, in November Spirit Airlines declared bankruptcy, concentrating the market by further entrenching the airline industry’s most dominant players, and leaving consumers with fewer choices for flights.
The DOJ’s efforts to block the merger between JetBlue and Spirit show that heavy-handed antitrust actions can backfire in instances where the current market is working for the benefit of consumers. This includes the DOJ’s case against Google Search, a product that consumers and businesses overwhelmingly prefer to use. As the case moves through its remedy phase, it has become clear that the Justice Department’s proposals to resolve the case would only leave consumers worse off and undermine competition. In fact, a recent CCIA report found that extreme remedies to the case, like a forced sell-off of Google Chrome, would “harm consumer welfare.”
One especially concerning proposed remedy from the government would force Google to spin off different parts of its business, like Chrome, into separate companies. However, Chrome’s value to consumers lies in the Google-specific products integrated into the browser, as well as the cybersecurity and privacy protections Google provides for Chrome users. Forcing Google to separate its Search and browser products would only degrade Chrome, and experts predict Chrome would fail as a standalone business. This outcome would eliminate a popular browser consumers prefer and leave Americans with fewer options.
The outcome of the Google Search case has clear negative implications for consumers and competition, and the overreaching proposed remedies do not appear to fully consider these. Ultimately, the court should place consumer welfare first, and reject the DOJ’s overreach in its final remedy decision.