October 10, 2024, WASHINGTON, DC – This week, the legal team representing the Department of Justice and several state attorneys general filed a preliminary “remedy framework” in their case against the search giant Google, following an August ruling by Judge Amit P. Mehta’s which erroneously declared the American company a “monopolist”.

The proposed remedies attack Google’s past, present, and future by:

• Restricting Google’s ability to make third-party arrangements for its search and web browser products.
• Limiting Google’s ability to cross-promote its own products such as Google Gemini (generative AI) on Chrome, Android, and the Google Play Store.
• Exploring ways to force Google to craft educational campaigns that inform consumers of alternative search engines.
• Opening Google’s vast data archive to researchers, educators, and competitors.
• Cutting off Google’s budding AI division utilizing data within its search products to train AI and service consumers with high-quality results.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, criticized the government’s bullet-point plan to break up the search company, “Imagine after the rise of Facebook, the DOJ comes in and forces the most popular social media app in the world to educate its users about alternatives, Myspace and Google+. It would have been laughable. That’s part of the government’s plan for Google, and it’s an all-out assault on consumer preference and choice. It’s a total insult to consumers.”

Google, according to  Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Jonathan Kanter, has set up a self-preferential ecosystem of apps and technology that limit competition. Prior to his role in the Biden DOJ, Kanter represented Microsoft, Yelp, and other competitors to Google.

“The truth is that consumers choose their search engine based on convenience and the quality of results. DOJ’s plans to restrict Google’s ability to enter into product partnerships, as well as halting their AI investments, does nothing but slow down the consumer experience,” continued Ossowski.

In August, the Consumer Choice Center was quoted by the Associated Press after the judge’s ruling, saying “The United States is drifting toward the anti-tech posture of the European Union, a part of the world that makes almost nothing and penalizes successful American companies for their popularity.“

The proposed remedy plan is only the first step in the federal government’s recommendations to the judge, but it will ultimately be the court that decides whether these terms are viable and necessary regarding Google. 

Yaël Ossowski concluded, “While the government unloads on Google, the competitive world of both closed and open-source Large Language Models is growing exponentially and expanding the market for artificial intelligence apps. Google already faces substantial competition as AI firms reshape the landscape of online search results. The government is using its power to tilt the scales of innovation in a direction it likes, depriving consumers of the effective free tools Google has provided for years.”

The Consumer Choice Center is taken aback by this insult to consumers being advanced by the U.S. Department of Justice. Competition is vital in the technology and AI sector, but the DOJ’s remedy proposal reflects an overstep of government authority and a disregard for the principle of consumer welfare.

“‘Google‘ is a verb because the products and tech ecosystem work for consumers exactly how they want and expect. If that ever stopped being the case, Google’s competitors wouldn’t seek government assistance in order to boost their market share. Jamming up Google, both now and in the future, is exactly what’s going on here and consumers should be outraged,” concluded Ossowski.