We all know and love chrome – the world’s most widely used web browser. With billions of sites, videos, and files, the search engine has played a pivotal role in shaping the internet. However, what if I told you chrome might not be around much longer? Yes, with over 3 billion users, chrome is by far the most utilized browser application. Yet, this might just be the cause of their downfall.
Currently, on a global-scale, Chrome holds nearly 90 percent market share in the search engine market. Due to the overwhelming hold chrome has over the search industry, it has been facing antitrust lawsuits that claim it uses anticompetitive methods to protect its widespread search dominance.
These allegations specifically relied on the fact that google creates contracts with device makers and browser partners, which in exchange use google as the default search technology. Two examples would be its partnerships with Apple and Mozilla. In fact, in 2022, Google paid Apple a whopping $20 billion for this very purpose.
The case was initially brought forward in 2020, becoming one of the most significant antitrust cases we have seen in decades. The ruling following the 2023 trial officially stated that Google had maintained an illegal monopoly in both general search and ads.
“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”, a statement put out by the Department of Justice accompanying the filing claims. “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 response, Google argued that it is successful not because of abusive market practices, but because it offers the best technology. Additionally, they also brought up the fact that consumers can easily change search engines, and that they do face significant competition, with Microsoft being an example.
Nonetheless, the DOJ came out in November with their first set of proposals. The company had to divest in AI investments, give up Chrome, grant competitors access to Google’s data, and end their search partnerships.
The Google President of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer, Kent Walker, said the proposal was a radical interventionist agenda that would endanger security, privacy, and stifle innovation, especially in AI. And unsurprisingly, Google came forward with a counter-proposal. In this attempt at a compromise, Google said that it would write its contracts to allow for multiple default search agreements, switch revenue deals with manufacturers to short-term agreements, and allow for more flexibility around search and chrome for android phone makers.
Since then, the most recent filing was made earlier this month. In this new proposal, the DOJ no longer requires that Google sells off its AI investment. Rather, Google must simply give regulators a heads-up before making any moves. However, they do still want Google to sell off Chrome.
With the trial court set to discuss Google’s dominance and potential remedies in April, the future of Chrome remains uncertain. If forced to divest, it could mark one of the biggest shifts in the tech industry in years, completely reshaping how users interact with the web.
Written by Saanvika Gandhari
