DOJ considers breaking up Google to dismantle alleged search monopoly

New Delhi: The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has publicly floated the idea of breaking up Google, aiming to dismantle what it alleges is an illegal monopoly over the online search market. 

The DOJ's consideration for structural changes within Google follows a ruling earlier this year where Judge Amit Mehta found Google guilty of maintaining its dominant position in search through exclusive agreements, effectively stifling competition. 

These agreements, particularly the lucrative deal with Apple that makes Google the default search engine on Safari, have been at the heart of the government's case. The ruling highlighted Google's payment of billions to ensure its search engine remains the default across various platforms, a practice deemed anti-competitive.

The DOJ's filing outlines a spectrum of remedies. The most radical suggestion involves splitting Google into separate entities, potentially isolating its search engine from other services like Chrome, Android, and the Google Play Store. This would aim to prevent Google from leveraging these products to favour its search engine.

A significant focus is on curbing Google's ability to enter into default search agreements, which critics argue unfairly advantage Google's search engine over competitors.

Another proposal involves forcing Google to share its search algorithms and data with competitors, promoting a more level playing field by allowing access to the data that powers Google's search effectiveness.

Google, however, has pushed back against these proposals, labelling them as "radical and sweeping" actions that could undermine US innovation and harm consumers. The tech giant argues that its practices have driven innovation and provided users with free access to its services.

If implemented, these remedies could lead to a significant reshuffling of the tech industry. 

The final remedies, set to be proposed by the DOJ on November 20, 2024, will be closely watched. Whether Google faces a breakup or lesser restrictions, the outcome of this case could serve as a blueprint for antitrust enforcement in the digital age, influencing how other tech giants might be regulated or broken down in the future.