The US trial of the 2020 search distribution is a backward case at a time of intense competition and unprecedented innovation. With new services such as Chatgpt (and foreign competitors like Deepseek) flowering, DOJ’s sweeping medium proposals are both unnecessary and harmful.
We have long said that we disagree with the court’s decision in the case and will appeal. But first, the court must decide which remedies best deal with its responsibility decision. During the trial, we show how DOJ’s unprecedented proposal goes Miles beyond the court’s decision and would hurt America’s consumers, economics and technological management:
- DOJ’s suggestions would make it harder for you to come to services you prefer. People use Google because they want, not because they have to. DOJ’s suggestion would force browsers and phones to standard to search services like Microsoft’s Bing, making it harder for you to access Google.
- DOJ’s proposal to prevent us from competing for the right to distribute search would raise prices and slow innovation. Device manufacturers and web browsers (like Mozillas Firefox) depend on the income they receive from search distribution. Removing this revenue would raise the cost of mobile phones and disabilities on the web browsers you use every day.
- DOJ’s suggestion would force Google to share your most sensitive and private search queries with companies you may never have heard of, at risk for your privacy and security. Your private information would be exposed to without your permission for companies that lack Google’s world -class security protection where they could be exploited by bad actors.
- DOJ’s proposal would also hammer how we develop AI, and have a government -selected committee to regulate the design and development of our products. It would hold back US innovation at a critical time. We are in a fiercely competitive global race with China for the next generation of technology management, and Google is at the forefront of US companies making scientific and technological breakthroughs.
- DOJ’s proposal to divide Chrome and Android – which we built at high costs for many years and made available for free – would break these platforms, damage companies that are built on them and undermine security. Google keeps more people in security online than any other business in the world. To interrupt Chrome and Android from our technical, security and operational infrastructure would not only introduce cyber security and even national security risks, but also increase the cost of your devices.
There is a better path forward – one that responds to the court’s decision without harming consumers, or America’s economy, technical leadership and national security. Our proposed remedies would achieve these goals by focusing on what this case is about – the competition contracts’ competition. You can read about our suggestions in this post.
When it comes to antitrust resolutions, the US Supreme Court has said “caution is key.” Doj’s proposal throws that caution against the wind.
We look forward to making our case in court.