Tech giant seeks to address antitrust concerns with court-backed limitations on app distribution
Google pushed back late Friday against a US government request to divest its Chrome browser, instead proposing an alternative remedy to address antitrust concerns. The tech giant suggested that a federal judge prohibit it from tying favorable distribution of its software to app licensing deals with mobile device manufacturers.
In a 12-page filing, Google outlined a proposed order to prevent the company from requiring preferential treatment of apps like Chrome, Play, or Gemini as a condition for licensing its products. This counters the US Department of Justice’s earlier call to break up Google by forcing the sale of Chrome and curbing agreements that make Google the default search engine on mobile devices.
The US government’s demands come after District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August that Google operates as a monopoly, marking a pivotal moment in a long-running antitrust trial.
Google’s proposed restrictions aim to eliminate the use of licensing agreements as leverage over mobile manufacturers. According to the filing, the proposed judgment would prevent Google from mandating pre-installation or default status for its search services on devices as part of app licensing deals.
However, the company maintained that other forms of business arrangements, such as incentivizing partners for app promotion or distribution, should remain permissible.
“Nothing in this Final Judgment shall otherwise prohibit Google from providing consideration to a mobile device manufacturer or wireless carrier with respect to any Google product or service in exchange for such entity’s distribution, placement on any access point, promotion, or licensing of that Google product or service,” the proposed order stated.
The Justice Department’s push to dismantle Google marks a significant shift in federal enforcement, following decades of minimal intervention in the tech sector. The call to break up the company echoes earlier efforts to dismantle Microsoft in the 1990s.
Regardless of the court’s final decision, the legal battle is expected to continue for years, with Google likely to appeal any unfavorable rulings. The case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court, prolonging the outcome even further.
Adding to the uncertainty is the upcoming transition in the White House. The administration of President-elect Donald Trump is expected to install new leadership in the Justice Department’s antitrust division. This change could influence how aggressively the government pursues the case against Google, with options ranging from continuing the trial to seeking a settlement or dropping the case altogether.
The antitrust trial, which concluded last year, exposed confidential deals between Google and smartphone makers, including Apple. These arrangements reportedly involve significant payments to secure Google’s dominance as the default search engine on devices, granting it unrivaled access to user data. Judge Mehta noted that this control has helped Google maintain its status as a global leader in search engine technology.
