Google once again finds itself on the receiving end of a filing by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). A recent filing demands Google divest Chrome and lays the groundwork to call for Google to sell Android.
The filing reasserts that Google is a monopoly and uses monopolistic practices to leverage search dominance in other markets. It goes as far as to say that “Google has robbed consumers and businesses of a fundamental promise owed to the public—their right to choose among competing services.”
The document, which was filed on March 7, 2025, follows up on an August ruling that states Google broke Section 2 of the Sherman Act. That ruling stated Google maintained an illegal search monopoly.
Gary Endicott, the father of the news writer of this piece, works as a paralegal for the United States Attorneys’ Office – Western District of Wisconsin. The United States Attorney’s Office is a subagency of the Department of Justice. Gary Endicott was not involved in the writing of this piece in any way.
The DOJ’s claim is quite extensive. The statement includes a Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) which, among other things, calls for the following:
- Prohibition of Google making search-related payments to Apple and non-Apple search distribution partners, such as paying to make Google the default search engine on iPhone.
- Prohibition of Google from “exclusive agreements with content publishers; bundling, tying, or commingling its general search engine or search access point with any other Google product.”
- Prohibition of Google entering revenue share agreements that are related to the distribution of general search services.
- Chrome to be divested from Google.
The proposal also includes a contingent Android divestiture.
A significant change in the RPFJ is that the DOJ is no longer calling for the divestiture of Google’s AI investments.
DOJ court filing excerpts
I’ll reiterate that the demands of the DOJ are extensive and include several layers. For example, the potential push to make Google divest Android is contingent on other factors.
The following are some key excerpts from the court filing (emphasis added):
“The American people’s reliance on Google’s search engine is well-known. Less understood, however, is how Google—through its unlawful and unchecked, monopolistic conduct over the past decade—secured the American people’s reliance. Google’s anticompetitive conduct has denied users of a basic American value—the ability to choose in the marketplace. Through its sheer size and unrestricted power, Google has robbed consumers and businesses of a fundamental promise owed to the public—their right to choose among competing services. Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that—no matter what occurs—Google always wins.”
“In addition, the RPFJ also reaffirms that Google must divest the Chrome browser—an important search access point—to provide an opportunity for a new rival to operate a significant gateway to search the internet, free of Google’s monopoly control.”
“The path to monopolies often begins with free goods and the promise of an exciting future and ends under the control of an economic “autocrat of trade.” Simply put, when the product is free, the American people are the product. For years, Google has been allowed to maintain its status as a monopolist without issue.”
“Yet, monopolies are incompatible with free markets and freedom more generally. The American dream is about higher values than just cheap goods and “free” online services. These values include freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to innovate, and freedom to compete in a market undistorted by the controlling hand of a monopolist. Google’s conduct presents genuine danger to freedom in the marketplace and to robust competition in our economy.”
What happens next?
This case is ongoing, and the DOJ’s filing is a proposal, not a legal requirement. While the end result could be Google divesting Chrome or Android, we are likely a way off from a final ruling.
As highlighted by our colleagues at PC Gamer, if Google is forced to sell Chrome, choosing the right buyer is important. If Chrome went to the wrong buyer, the forced sale could end up resulting in no change for everyday users or make the situation worse.
When the final ruling arrives for this case, it will likely become a landmark ruling that sets precedent that reaches throughout the tech industry.
