Google labeled a U. S. Justice Department proposal demanding it to divest its web browser as “extreme” and legally unfounded, cautioning a federal court judge against actions that could suppress innovation and future funding.
In a court document submitted late Friday, Google reacted to the DOJ’s demand and suggested an alternative solution. The company asserted that the proposed sale of Chrome is inconsistent with the company’s actions that the judge deemed illegal — which included exclusive agreements with browsers, smartphone makers, and telecom service providers.
“Extremely harsh remedies are discouraged” according to the courts, the company stated in its submission. The remedies for anticompetitive behavior “must be of the ‘same type or class’ as the violations,” Google maintained. Last month, the Justice Department and a coalition of states requested Judge Amit Mehta to mandate Google to divest its Chrome web browser along with a range of other modifications to the company’s operations to enhance competition in the online search arena.
Google insisted that any remedy should permit rival browsers like Apple Inc. ‘s Safari “the freedom to engage in agreements with whichever search engine they believe is best for their users,” as Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company’s vice president for regulatory affairs, noted in a blog entry. Mehta determined it was unlawful for Google to compensate Apple and others to be the default browser supplier.
Mulholland indicated that Google’s proposal would still enable the company to share revenue with competing browsers but would allow multiple default search engines across various platforms. It would enable device manufacturers to preload several search engines and not obligate them to include Chrome and Google search if they choose to feature other Google applications.
Google’s submission on Friday marks its first formal reaction since Mehta concluded earlier this year that it unlawfully monopolized the online search and advertising sectors. The company has indicated plans to appeal but cannot initiate that process until the case is resolved.
“If the DOJ believed that Google’s investments in Chrome, or our AI developments, or our web crawling practices, or our algorithm creation were anticompetitive in any way, it could have initiated those cases. It did not,” Mulholland expressed. The judge has scheduled a hearing in April to determine how to address the lack of competition in the sectors where Google has held sway and has committed to issuing a final ruling by August 2025.
