lucadelladora – Alphabet’s Google has proposed new restrictions on its revenue-sharing agreements with companies like Apple, which make Google’s search engine the default choice on their devices and browsers. These suggestions are part of Google’s broader efforts to address antitrust concerns while the company continues to battle legal challenges over its dominant position in the online search market.
The proposals come in response to a ruling issued in August by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, which found that Google had unlawfully suppressed competition in the search engine market. The court determined that the company’s practices, including exclusive agreements with major tech firms, stifled innovation and limited consumer choice. Google has since vowed to appeal the decision.
By revising its revenue-sharing agreements, Google aims to demonstrate a willingness to adapt its practices and foster a more competitive digital environment. However, critics argue that these changes may not be sufficient to address the structural issues underlying the company’s dominance.
Google’s antitrust battle has placed the tech giant under intense scrutiny, with regulators and competitors closely monitoring its moves. The company’s proposed changes are seen as a strategic attempt to balance compliance with antitrust laws while maintaining its market leadership.
Suggests Alternatives to DOJ’s Proposed Search Monopoly Remedies
In a legal filing submitted Friday, Google defended its right to continue entering into contracts with other companies while proposing several changes to address concerns about its dominance in the search engine market. These suggestions are part of Google’s effort to offer alternative remedies in its ongoing antitrust case with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
Google proposed allowing different default search engines to be assigned across platforms and browsing modes, such as private or incognito modes. Additionally, the tech giant recommended granting its partners the ability to change their default search engine at least once every 12 months. Aiming to provide more flexibility and choice for users and partner companies alike.
These proposed remedies significantly differ from the sweeping measures suggested by the DOJ last month. The Justice Department had called on U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to impose stricter restrictions, including barring Google from entering into revenue-sharing contracts altogether. Such contracts, the DOJ argues, unfairly suppress competition and entrench Google’s dominant position in the search market.
By contrast, Google’s suggestions emphasize adjustments rather than an overhaul, reflecting its stance that such agreements are not inherently anti-competitive. The company argues that its proposals balance the need for market competition with operational practicality.
Read More : U.S. House Committee Urges Apple and Google to Ban TikTok
Google Pushes Back on DOJ’s Call to Sell Chrome Amid Antitrust Remedies Battle
In the ongoing antitrust case against Google, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has intensified its stance by recommending that Google divest Chrome. The world’s most widely used web browser. This demand comes as part of broader remedies aimed at curbing Google’s dominance in the online search market. Where it controls approximately 90% of global search traffic, according to web analytics firm Statcounter.
In response, Google filed counterproposals on Friday, arguing that the DOJ’s recommendations are excessively sweeping and would disrupt partnerships and operations. Google’s proposed solutions include permitting partners to change default search engines annually and assigning different search engine defaults based on platform or browsing mode. However, the tech giant acknowledged that even these adjustments would impose significant costs on its partners.
In a statement, Google described the DOJ’s suggested remedies as “overbroad.” Emphasizing that such measures could harm both competition and the broader ecosystem of developers and consumers. The company stressed that its own proposals aim to balance regulatory concerns with maintaining service quality and user experience.
The antitrust case, which stems from allegations that Google illegally suppressed competition through exclusive revenue-sharing agreements, has reached a critical phase. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is set to evaluate the remedies proposed by both sides and issue a decision by August, following the conclusion of the trial.
