The campaign towards the unlawful monopolistic practices of enormous know-how corporations skilled a notable milestone within the US courts this Wednesday. The prosecutors from the Department of Justice and the States who sued Google and managed to get a decide to declare that it had abused its dominant place within the Internet search market are requesting a variety of treatments that may be an earthquake for the corporate it runs. Sundar Pichai. The proposed decision would power Google to promote its Chrome browser, isolate its Android working system, turn into a licensee of its searches to rivals and eradicate preferential agreements similar to these it has with Apple. The firm would even be topic to strict supervision for a decade.
Taken collectively, the handfuls of measures proposed within the case United States towards Google They would characterize essentially the most drastic intervention in a know-how firm since one other courtroom ordered the partition of Microsoft in 2000, in a decision that was later annulled by greater courts. Judge Amit Mehta isn’t anticipated to subject a ruling till August subsequent 12 months, which, in any case, can be appealable.
The Department of Justice had already anticipated in October that it was contemplating drastic measures, together with the division of the corporate. The spotlight of the proposed decision is the sale of Chrome: “Google must quickly and completely divest Chrome, to a buyer approved by the plaintiffs in their sole discretion, subject to such terms as the court and the plaintiffs approve. “Google will not be able to launch any other Google browser during the term of this final ruling without the approval of the court,” the proposed measure says.
The proclaimed goal is to free monopoly markets from Google’s exclusionary practices and open them to competitors. Prosecutors preserve that the sale of Chrome is critical to “permanently stop Google’s control over this critical search hotspot and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to Internet”.
With those arguments, in addition to requiring Google to get rid of its Chrome browser, the resolution would also prohibit the company from providing its search products with preferential access to related products or services that it owns or controls, such as Android. Regarding this mobile operating system, there would be two options: sell it or isolate it from the search engine.
Thus, Google should not provide itself with preferential access to Android or Google-owned applications or data compared to that it provides to all other search engines and AI products. Nor should you use your ownership and control of Android, or any other Google product or service, to leverage it to your search engine. In fact, the resolution would impose a review after five years and if competition in searches has not increased, Google could be forced to also sell Android.
Breakup with Apple
The proposed resolution, which the judge can adopt in whole or in part or reject, has a special section dedicated to Apple: “Google must not offer or provide anything of value to Apple, nor offer commercial conditions, that in any way financially disincentivize Apple. Apple to compete or enter the general search engine or search text advertising markets.”
That is one of the key aspects discussed in the trial: the agreements by which Google pays billions of dollars to be the default search engine for iPhones, iPads and Macs when using its Safari browser. In practice, Apple gave up developing its search engine, but it takes a good pinch, on the order of 20 billion dollars annually, for the traffic it directs to Google. If this part of the resolution is approved, which seems very likely, the main loser in the short term would be Apple more than Google.
In general, although there is a specific clause regarding Apple, other agreements by which Google is the default search engine on other devices are also proscribed. The catalog of measures is very extensive. Prosecutors want Google to be prohibited from entering into any contract or agreement to secure data licenses from any publisher, website or content creator, that grants the search engine exclusivity or that restricts the publisher’s ability to reach agreements with another developer of search engines or artificial intelligence products.
The company also could not condition access to the Play Store or any other Google product on a search engine distribution agreement. Google should also not bundle, link, or otherwise condition the search engine with any other Google product. The resolution would also ban revenue-sharing agreements for Google queries, ad clicks, and the like.
Mass data transfer and searches
The Department of Justice’s proposal would also imply that Google would have to transfer its data en masse and at a marginal cost, in order to eliminate barriers to entry for competitors. In addition, Google would be prohibited from using and retaining for itself any data that it cannot provide to qualified competitors for privacy or security reasons.
Not only that: Google would also have to become a search provider for third parties, that is, syndicate and license their content, so that other search engines can be used with the same quality and reliability of Google. It would become a kind of search wholesaler. Any qualified competitor could have a 10-year license to use its search engine as a substrate, in the same way, bridging the gap, that virtual telephone operators use the networks of the companies that have invested in them. You should also agree to syndication agreements for search text ads, although in this case for one year.
In addition, Google would be forced into an exercise in transparency, to show the guts of its advertising business. For each search text ad served or clicked, Google must make available to advertisers, at the individual ad level for the preceding 18-month period, data showing the query, the triggering keyword, cost per click (CPC), positioning, lifetime value and any other metrics necessary for the advertiser to evaluate the performance of their ad.
Divestments and acquisitions
As if that were not enough, the company’s shareholding and acquisition policy will also be conditioned. If the resolution were approved, Google would have a month to identify what stakes it has in potential competitors, including artificial intelligence companies that could compete in the search market. “Within six months, Google must divest itself of any such participation and immediately refrain from taking any action that could discourage or disincentivize said company from developing products or services that compete with search engines or Text Ads in Google searches, interrupt them or disintermediate them,” the text says.
To the contrary, Google may not, without prior written consent of the plaintiffs, acquire any interest in any company or enter into partnership or collaboration agreements, including any marketing or sales agreement, with any company that competes with Google in search. .
The imposed measures would have a duration of 10 years, although if competitors achieve a market share in searches greater than 50% and the company has been obeying the conditions for five years, it could request that the sentence be considered fulfilled.
Google will have the opportunity to present its own allegations in December on the remedies to be adopted. The Justice Department may supplement its position in March. Then there will be a two-week oral hearing in April. The lawsuit against Google was filed by the Department of Justice during Donald Trump’s first term. It was put on trial during Biden’s presidency and will reach its conclusion again with Trump in power.
When the prosecutors’ general statements were revealed last month, Google responded that the prosecutors’ stance is “radical and sweeping” and could have “unexpected unfavorable penalties for innovation and American shoppers.” It indicated that forcing Google to share search queries, clicks and outcomes with opponents would put customers’ privateness and safety in danger. and, above all, he indicated that “separating Chrome or Android would break them, and it would break many other things.” “We have invested billions of dollars in Chrome and Android,” Google stated. “Make no mistake: separating them would change their business models, increase the cost of the devices and weaken Android and Google Play in their strong competition with the iPhone and Apple’s App Store,” he added.
https://elpais.com/economia/2024-11-21/el-departamento-de-justicia-de-estados-unidos-pide-al-juez-que-obliga-a-google-a-vender-chrome.html