Here’s what we learned:
DOJ’s proposal ignores the huge competition throughout the industry.
- DOJ’s case ignores how intense competition has transformed the industry. Well -funded services such as Chatgpt, Grok, Deepseek, Confusion and Metai quickly win users and distribution and add innovations at a broken pace. Proof of trial showed Openai thinks “It has what it needs to win.”
- Our ability to enter into promotional agreements do not hold back this new generation of competition. Apple recently chose to contain chatgpt in Apple Intelligence, while Motorola has already integrated confusion and Microsoft’s copilot into its new RAZR devices.
DOJ’s proposal would leave consumers with worse experiences and fewer choices.
- Apple’s SVP of Services Eddy Cue said Apple is choosing to contain Google because it is “the best search engine” and that it continues to improve with new innovations such as AI listings. In contrast, DOJ’s suggestion would make it harder for people to get the search engine they prefer.
- DOJ’s proposal would also damage widely used browsers and leave consumers fewer choices. Mozilla CFO Eric Muhlheim said DOJ’s proposal would hurt the browser competition and “put Firefox out of operation.”
Information on mandate data would threaten Americans’ privacy.
- Privacy expert Dr. Chris Culnane testified that DOJ’s proposal requires even more data than Europe’s digital markets that threaten to reveal people’s personal information and behavior and threaten widespread privacy violations. Software Industry Information Association wrote that “[i]T is almost certain that forced sharing of search data will expose users and the internet ecosystem to countless privacy and security risks. “
- Even a witness from Microsoft – the company that stands to win the most from DOJ’s proposal – admitted that “privacy concerns are not composed.”
De facto divestments would hold back innovation at a critical time.
- While we are at an important moment in the Global Technology Race, Sundar Pichai testified that DOJ’s proposal constitutes a “de facto event” of search, and VP for Search Liz Reid confirmed they would “significantly inhibit” innovation. While Google spends billions each year on R&D – $ 49 billion last year – DOJ’s proposal to confiscate the benefit of these innovations would reduce incentives for future investment.
- University of Chicago Economist Dr. Kevin Murphy found that forced sharing of data and intellectual property would reduce incentives for rivals to innovate. As Murphy explained, “Card Research to get to the end” usually doesn’t work as you want it to, making it more likely that rivals would try to clone google rather than make their own differentiated innovation.
To dispose of Chrome would break it – and many other things.
- DOJ’s proposal to interrupt Chrome – as billions of people use for free – would break it and result in a “shade of the current Chrome”, according to Chrome leader Parisa Tabriz. She added that the browser would probably be “uncertain and outdated.” Open webadi and a wide range of voices agreed that it would do more harm than good.
- Columbia University professor Jason Nieh testified that breaking by Chrome would be “very challenging” as it is deeply integrated into Google’s infrastructure. And the result would impair products such as secure browsing, Chromeos, Open Source chrome project and more.
- Google CyberSecurity chief Heather Adkins warned that cut off Chrome from Google’s security infrastructure would expose billions of people to cyber attacks.
DOJ’s suggestions would help competitors, not consumers.
During weeks of testimony, we heard from a number of well -funded companies that were eager to access Google’s technology so they don’t have to innovate themselves. What we didn’t hear was how DOJ’s extreme proposals would benefit consumers – which is what US antitrust law is about.
As the legal process continues, we will continue to advocate useful, innovative products that work for everyone.