Forcing Google To Sell Chrome and Android Won't Make its Search Engine Less Popular
The Department of Justice's recommended remedies will only harm consumers.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is trying to force Google to sell Chrome after a federal judge ruled that the tech giant had monopolized the search market. Making Google divest itself from Chrome and Android won't significantly reduce Google's share of the market for general search services, it will just harm consumers.
The DOJ's antitrust crusade against the tech giant began in October 2020 when, invoking Section 2 of the Sherman Act, it argued that Google had abused its monopoly power to "require preinstallation and prominent placement of Google's apps," among other claims of exclusionary conduct. Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the DOJ in August, finding Google guilty of monopolizing the general search engine (GSE) market.
To end Google's monopoly over the GSE market, the DOJ recommended divestiture from Chrome, "which has 'fortified [Google's] dominance,'" and Android, "which would prevent Google from using Android to exclude rival search providers."
Ryan Young, senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, tells Reason that the DOJ's narrow market definition doesn't consider Reddit, ChatGPT, and other GSE alternatives, which "have become popular, and in some areas outperform Google."
Even accepting the DOJ's definition of the GSE market, the claim that Chrome is responsible for Google's dominance of the market is highly dubious. Google made up 89 percent of the U.S. search engine market despite Chrome making up only 57 percent of the U.S. browser market as of October 2024. That means at least 74 percent of non-Chrome users search with Google, even assuming 100 percent of Chrome users search with Google.
Even if Chrome suddenly vanished, it's clear Google would still dominate the GSE market. Nevertheless, antitrust enforcers insist Chrome is "a key access point through which many people use [Google's] search engine," reports Bloomberg. If Chrome is a key access point to Google, so are Safari, Firefox, and Edge.
The DOJ also recommends Google be barred from using "its ownership and control of Android, or any other Google product or service, to: degrade…the features, functionality, or user experience, on rival GSE, Search Text Ads, or AI Products on Android Devices." But divesting Google from Android would deprive users of the convenience of bundling smartphones with the suite of preinstalled Google apps, including Chrome, Google Play, Google Maps, Google Drive, and the rest of the comprehensive suite of free-to-use apps.
This isn't the only lawsuit the DOJ has against Google. The DOJ sued the embattled tech firm in January 2023 for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing digital advertising technology. The DOJ claims Google's acquisitions of ad tech competitors "have had harmful effects on competition and consumers." But that's not quite true.
The expectation of acquisition benefits consumers by encouraging R&D investment in a manner similar to advance market commitments that guarantee firms a prespecified return for a product. If the latter benefits consumers by encouraging innovation, so does the former.
Consumer welfare is the end goal of competition just as "consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production," according to Adam Smith. Google's integration of its search engine, suite of apps, browser, and Android phones has made consumers' lives better; the DOJ's recommendations will make them worse.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But divesting Google from Android would deprive users of the convenience of bundling smartphones with the suite of preinstalled Google apps, including Chrome, Google Play, Google Maps, Google Drive, and the rest of the comprehensive suite of free-to-use apps.
Kill bloatware.
100% worth.
invoking Section 2 of the Sherman Act
And that law doesn’t care about consumers or the harm they might suffer.
It never has.
When the discussion is X, reason focuses on alternatives. When it is Google it is don't do anything.
Not saying they should be regulsted but there are much better options.
Anti-trust law is bullshit anyway, but part of me laughs at Google getting the karma they don't deserve. On the other hand, they were fools enough to think sucking up to one set of government kleptocrats has any value in buying off the rest of the kleptocratura. Maybe some part of Google will realize they can't trust government period.
Daily reminder that Google got its initial funding from the CIA, and has been nourished by grants and anti-competitive legislation that Google lobbied for.
It's not a creation of the invisible hand, but government hands.
Selling Chrome and Android will absolutely harm Google's ability to monetize the CUSTOMER data it collects. And it collects/sells that data without being remotely honest about that to consumers. Who - btw ARE the real owners of that data - and who, if we had a real data privacy act would get standing in court to be rewarded for that data.
Big tech (the ad-based model) only exists because of theft.
>>Forcing Google To Sell Chrome and Android Won't Make its Search Engine Less Popular
no no, only Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has the power to tell Americans which search engine can be used
Google is such a spectacularly bad search engine at this point. You get exactly what Google wants you to see, whatever it is YOU want to see be damned.
^this^ (at least on politics and culture)
.plus… Forcing Google To Sell Chrome and Android Won’t Make its Search Engine Less Popular
-so – no harm no foul then - have at it! ????
Google and the other search engines are what killed Web 1.0
The search engines decided that their goal was to keep surfers on their sites forever rather than to send surfers on their way. They even had a name for that strategy. They would be ‘portals’. It killed ad revenue for niche sites which was always the initial proposed revenue stream until a large enough base could be built up for something more than selling eyeballs. Those target sites spent ungodly amounts of effort trying to come up with privacy statements/policies.
None of which mattered in the end. Google and the other mass advertisers basically either lied their way on data privacy – or grw fast enough so that they achieved ad profits from those who didn’t give a shit (or understand) about privacy or what their data was worth.
I switched over to Brave as a search engine. Results did used to be ok on Google but they have truly killed any web site that will show up on the 2nd page of a keyword search. Meaning - there are 20 or so web sites that will survive.
All credibility was lost when the author thinks 'reddit' is a search engine and Google apps only works on chrome. If they do only work on chrome then there is your monopoly and antitrust case.
Yes, you can often find the info you're looking for on Reddit.
When I noticed that Google was hiding certain things that I was interested in, I switched to Bing years ago. It was effortless. How did I do that without the DOJ's help? Now, probably all of my searches start with CoPilot, ChatGPT, or Meta.ai.
So forcing Google onto actual competitive bidding to be the default browser won't do anything? Wonder why it's such a prized position then.
Google specifically and deliberately created its browser and its phone operating system as defenses against someone else using a dominant browser or dominant phone operating system to disadvantage Google search in favor of some other search engine.
Now, it is entirely possible that Google was mistaken that a company could use a dominant browser or phone operating system as a way to influence market share in search. But it's hardly unreasonable for the Justice Department to agree with Google about the potential influence of a dominant browser or phone operating system over market share in search.
This is not remotely the strawman claim attacked by Mr. Nicastro that Chrome or Android caused Google's market share position ( which was near-80% back when Chrome and Android were freshly-introduced versus the near-90% it is today https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/united-states-of-america/#monthly-200901-202411 ), but that they are bulwarks defending Google's search market share against competitors.
This is a bad article right from the headline.
No one is going to force Google to sell Chrome and Android. They will be forced to spin these companies off into separate entities. Still owned by Alphabet.
They could force full divestiture like Ma Bell of old, but you are correct that they may just force them into separate entities still largely owned by Alphabet.
The evolving U.S. space policy in 2025 sets the stage for exciting advancements in space exploration and technology. By prioritizing innovation and international collaboration, this agenda aims to expand humanity's reach beyond Earth https://orbitaltoday.com/2024/10/28/space-agenda-2025-what-should-we-expect-from-u-s-space-policy/ As these strategies unfold, they promise to pave the way for groundbreaking discoveries and new opportunities in the cosmos.