pexels allen boguslavsky

Google has responded to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) push to break up its business over antitrust violations with its own set of proposed remedies. While the DOJ’s list of potential solutions includes selling Chrome and unbundling key services, Google has offered an alternative plan focusing on restructuring its business contracts and licensing agreements.

The DOJ’s original remedies aim to restore competition in the search engine market, targeting Google’s dominance through measures such as selling Chrome or splitting off Android and Google Play. However, Google’s counterproposal avoids these drastic measures. Instead, it addresses the payments Google makes to companies like Apple and Mozilla for exclusive search placements, licensing arrangements with Android phone manufacturers, and contracts with wireless carriers. Notably, Google’s proposals do not include the DOJ’s suggestion that it shares its search data with competitors to help them catch up.

In its blog post, Google’s regulatory VP, Lee-Anne Mulholland, explained that the company’s remedies specifically target its search distribution contracts, which Judge Amit Mehta identified as central to Google’s monopolistic practices.

For a period of three years, Google’s proposal would prevent it from bundling licenses for Chrome, Search, and its app store, Google Play, with the preinstallation of other apps like Chrome, Google Assistant, or the Gemini AI assistant.

The proposal also allows Google to continue paying for default search placement in browsers. However, it stipulates that these deals must permit agreements with multiple platforms or browsing modes and include an annual review clause.

While Google plans to appeal Judge Mehta’s ruling, which stated that the company has abused its monopoly power, it has committed to submitting a revised proposal by March 7. This will precede a two-week trial scheduled for April to address the DOJ’s concerns.

Google’s counteroffer reflects its attempt to retain control over its ecosystem while addressing some of the DOJ’s antitrust concerns, avoiding a breakup of its core business operations.