Google proposes altering contracts to correct illegal search monopoly
After the government pushed for the breakup of Google, accusing it of business practices that violate antitrust laws, the Mountain View, Calif., tech giant proposed its own solutions on Friday — to restructure its business contracts instead.
“Regulating a fast-changing industry like search with an invasive decree like the one proposed by Plaintiffs would harm competition, innovation, and consumers,” Google said in a court filingFriday.
The request comes after a federal judge in August found that the tech company had illegally maintained a monopoly in search. Google said it disagreed with the decision and plans to appeal.
A federal judge is considering ways to restore competition in the online search market. Google says a breakup would hurt consumers.
Amit P. Mehta, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is now trying to decide on ways to restore competition. Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice and several states proposed solutions to fix what it described as Google’s illegal search monopoly that included forcing the company to sell Chrome.
Google’s proposed fixes are more narrow than what the DOJ suggested. What the judge decides could reshape the future of the internet and affect Google’s ad business.
In a court filing, Google proposed putting limits around its contracts with mobile device manufacturers and wireless carriers. For example, Google proposed that it wouldn’t enter an agreement with Apple in which it’s the default search engine unless its partners were allowed to set a different default search annually in the United States and promote other search services.
“We don’t propose these changes lightly. They would come at a cost to our partners by regulating how they must go about picking the best search engine for their customers,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs in a blog post.
The nearly 300-page landmark ruling by Mehta partly focuses on how Google held onto its dominance by paying major companies such as Apple and Samsung so it’s the default search engine on web browsers and mobile devices. These agreements hindered Google’s rivals from growing and reduced the incentive for other companies to invest in search, the judge found.
“The truth is, no new entrant could hope to compete with Google for the default on Firefox or any other browser,” the judge wrote. “Google’s query and quality advantage and high revenue share payments are strong incentives simply to stay put.”
Google’s default placements on Mozilla’s Firefox made up 80% of Mozilla’s operating revenue, the decision says. But Google also pays Apple more money than all its other partners combined. In 2022, Google paid Apple an estimated $20 billion so it could be the default search engine on the Safari browser.
This week, Mozilla raised concerns that some of the DOJ’s proposed solutions could harm web browsers. One of the potential fixes include preventing Google from entering revenue share agreements tied to the distribution of its search services.
“By jeopardizing the revenue streams of critical browser competitors, these remedies risk unintentionally strengthening the positions of a handful of powerful players,” Mozilla wrote in a blog post. Mozilla said that Google was the default search engine in Firefox in the United States because it “provides the best search experience for our users.”
Outside of partnerships with major tech companies, there are other ways Google maintains control over the way people access search engines. Google also runs popular web browser Chrome and a mobile operating system Android.
Last month, the DOJ and several states urged the judge to force Google to sell Chrome. The agency also suggested requiring the tech company to display a “choice screen” on every Google browser when a user hasn’t chosen a default search engine so people know there are other options available.
U.S. regulators want a federal judge to break up Google to prevent the company from continuing to squash competition through its dominant search engine after a court found it had maintained an abusive monopoly over the last decade.
Other ideas the government floated include allowing publishers to opt out of having Google use their content to train artificial intelligence tools and giving advertisers more control over ads that show up in search results.
Google pushed back against the government’s proposed solutions, calling the approach an “unprecedented government overreach.”
Mehta is expected to decide on solutions by August 2025.
Inside the business of entertainment
The Wide Shot brings you news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
