What you need to know about the proposed measures designed to curb Google’s search monopoly

U.S. regulators are proposing aggressive measures to restore competition to the online search market after a federal judge ruled Google maintained an illegal monopoly for the last decade.

The sweeping set of recommendations filed late Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Justice could radically alter Google’s business, including possibly spinning off the Chrome web browser and syndicating its search data to competitors. Even if the courts adopt the blueprint, Google isn’t likely to make any significant changes until 2026 at the earliest, because of the legal system’s slow-moving wheels.

Here’s what it all means:

What is the Justice Department’s goal?

Federal prosecutors are cracking down on Google in a case originally filed during near the end of then-President Donald Trump’s first term. Officials say the main goal of these proposals is to get Google to stop leveraging its dominant search engine to illegally squelch competition and stifle innovation.

“The playing field is not level because of Google’s conduct, and Google’s quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired,” the Justice Department asserted in its recommendations. “The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages.”

Not surprisingly, Google sees things much differently. The Justice Department’s “wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court’s decision,” Kent Walker, Google’s chief legal officer, asserted in a blog post. “It would break a range of Google products — even beyond search — that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives.”

It’s still possible that the Justice Department could ease off on its attempts to break up Google, especially if President-elect Donald Trump takes the widely expected step of replacing Jonathan Kanter, who was appointed by President Joe Biden to oversee the agency’s antitrust division.

Why focus on Chrome?

Regulators want Google to sell off its industry-leading Chrome web browser, though the filing did not specify who would ultimately buy the business or how that process would work.

Justice lawyers called Chrome a “gateway to the internet” that provides the search giant with data it then uses for targeted advertising. Regulators believe that asking Google to divest Chrome would create a more equal playing field for search competitors.

Chrome also is included in the set of apps bundled with Android on phones as part of a mobile device ecosystem that regulators say gives Google a big edge.

Chrome is the world’s most popular mobile web browser, with about 67% adoption globally, according to StatCounter. Apple’s Safari browser has the next highest adoption at 18%.

Although it could be years before we see any practical effects of this case on the market, it could mean users would see more search engine options when selecting a default one to use on their favored devices.

Does any of this affect Android?

While federal regulators aren’t going as far as to demand Google spin off Android, they are leaving the door open.

The government asked the judge to impose behavioral limitations that would essentially blunt Android from favoring Google’s own general search services.

Regulators asserted U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta should make it clear that Google could still be required to divest its smartphone operating system if the other proposed measures prove ineffective at restoring competition to the search market.

Android is the world’s most popular smartphone operating system, found on 71% of mobile phones, Statcounter says. It’s free to use, so many devices by Samsung and many other tech companies — aside from Apple — have it pre-installed.

What else?

The Justice Department outlined a range of behavioral measures to give rival search engines a better chance at competing with Google.

The core remedy is a ban on Google from cutting deals worth billions of dollars to lock in its search engine as the default option on Apple’s iPhone and other popular devices. This could potentially impact the bottom line at companies receiving such packages.

Other key recommendations:

1. Prohibiting Google from using search results to favor its own services, such as YouTube or its recently-launched artificial intelligence platform, Gemini.

2. Forcing Google to license the search index data to its rivals.

3. Requiring Google to be more transparent about how it sets the prices advertisers pay to be listed near the top of some targeted search results.

4. Giving publishers, websites and content creators the right to opt out of having their data indexed for Google’s search results or to train its artificial intelligence models.

What comes next?

Google has the chance to submit its own list of proposed fixes in December, and federal regulators will file a revised version of their proposals in early March. Court hearings on these proposed measures are scheduled to begin in April and Mehta is expected to issue a final decision before Labor Day.

The remedies trial will take place after the Trump administration takes over from Biden in January and assumes oversight of the Department of Justice, which could impact the punishments it ultimately pursues.

Although Trump has made comments suggesting a breakup of Google isn’t in the U.S. national interest, recent nominations put forward by his transition team have favored those who have been critical of Big Tech companies. And the case was originally filed during Trump’s first term, which suggests Google won’t be entirely off the hook.

Google is expected to appeal the case after the remedy hearings, which means the case could drag on for years in the courts.