Share and join the conversation: X/Twitter, Mastodon, LinkedIn and Bluesky.

In late 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), in conjunction with state attorneys general representing 11 states, brought a landmark antitrust case against Google for unlawfully maintaining a monopoly in the general search engine market. In August 2024, Judge Mehta ruled that “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly”.

We believe this ruling was correct, necessary, and that the DOJ’s case is compelling.

Last week, the DOJ formally asked Judge Amit P. Mehta to order Google to divest its Chrome web browser. The request came during opening statements in a three-week remedies hearing at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

David Dahlquist, leading the DOJ’s arguments, stated:

Your honor, we are not here for a Pyrrhic victory. This is the time for the court to tell Google and all other monopolists who are out there listening — and they are listening — that there are consequences when you break the antitrust laws. David Dahlquist - Justice Department Lawyer

We agree with the DOJ. A hollow win that leaves Google’s monopoly intact is not beneficial to either US consumers or businesses, and Google’s counter-proposals will not fix the underlying problem: that Google held and has abused its monopoly in search.

However, we’re concerned that if the DOJ goes too far, particularly by forcing a sale of Chrome and banning search deals with smaller browser vendors like Mozilla, it will do lasting harm to the web platform. We estimate that such remedies could cause a 70% drop in web platform investment and could potentially bankrupt Mozilla.

We believe the DOJ can meet its objectives without crippling the web platform. Last week, we published a detailed paper outlining how the DOJ could adjust its remedies. Conservatively, we estimate these adjusted remedies would reduce Google’s U.S. search market share to below 50%, the threshold for presumed monopoly power. Critically, though, rather than collapsing platform funding, these adjusted remedies would likely increase web platform investment by 150%, creating a healthier, more competitive, and more innovative internet ecosystem.

Specifically, we proposed:

We also discussed the possibility of spinning Chrome out as a non-profit, however we were uncertain of the legal feasibility of such a remedy.

Amid growing debate about the DOJ’s proposed remedies, many voices across the tech industry have cautioned against forcing the sale of Chrome.

Malte Ubl - Vercel CTO

Very balanced and well articulated thread and blog post as to why splitting Chrome from Google would be disastrous for the web–and how there are much better measures to fix the monopoly problem.
Malte Ubl - Vercel CTO

Guillermo Rauch - Vercel CEO

Google Chrome ending up in the wrong hands due to DOJ intervention could be catastrophic for the open web and backfire entirely.

Few organizations in the world meet the bar of having the web’s best interests in mind, the technical infrastructure and know-how, and the immense required funding.

Working on a browser involves two main areas: the engine and its frontend, like a car’s engine and its chassis & dashboard. Google has done a *phenomenal* job on the engine, which is one of the absolute hardest technical undertakings in the world, and curiously enough is actually fully open source.

Blink, Chrome’s engine, is BSD and LGPL licensed, developed in the open, and powers so many of Google’s competitors, including Microsoft Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Browser Company’s Arc/Dia, and dozens of others at no cost. It’s absolutely essential that this work stays uninterrupted, while we continue to invest as a community in engine diversity, including projects like @ladybirdbrowser of which I’m a proud backer.

And Blink is just one piece, in charge of rendering. Google has built and open sourced many other crucial engine components like the V8 JavaScript engine, Skia, PDFium, Cronet, and many others, bundled as part of the open Chromium distribution. The complexity of what makes a modern browser work is truly staggering. Thank you Google.

The DOJ is taking particular issue with the engine’s frontend, the actual thing consumers download and interact with. This is where Google has the unique privilege to package and distribute the open source engine components, and impose arbitrary rules and configurations on top, like search engine defaults, AI assistance models, telemetry capture, login / accounts integration, settings and history sync, Web Store rules (like which ad blockers can be distributed), etc. At the scale Google is operating and the power it confers, scrutiny and caution here is warranted.

I believe, however, that the best path forward will be an incremental one, maintaining the careful balance of a browser frontend that has the everyday internet citizen’s best interests in mind, while not disrupting the investment and support of such crucial open internet infrastructure that benefits us all. Guillermo Rauch - Vercel CEO

Jordan Walke - Creator of React and ReasonML

Reacting to Guillermo Rauch’s post, Jordan Walke had this to say:

This. iOS browser choice is the real issue. Jordan Walke - Creator of React and ReasonML

You can read more about iOS browser choice in our paper: “Bringing Competition to Walled Gardens”.

Yoav Weiss - Web Performance Engineer at Shopify, WebPerfWG/WICG Co-Chair

The DOJ proposal would have extremely negative consequences for the web. The OWA folks propose a significantly better alternative
Yoav Weiss - Web Performance Engineer at Shopify, WebPerfWG/WICG Co-Chair

Ilya Grigorik - Distinguished Engineer at Shopify

Building an app, convincing users to install, and then to engage with it presents an incredibly high bar and massive friction. Major brands with established fans can achieve escape velocity, but the millions of SMBs trying to make their first sale? They stand no chance. They're operating on razor-thin margins, and the online store is the primary and predominant channel of choice because it is a one-tap destination for the potential buyer. It is also the only channel that gives them full creative control, one-tap open and permissionless discovery, and direct relationship with the customer. Continued success of the open web platform is essential to the success of all merchants, and existential for most SMBs.
Ilya Grigorik - Distinguished Engineer at Shopify

Karlijn Löwik - CEO of RUMvision

This was a seriously great, informative and well researched read. Chrome, and Googles huge investments in the browser, are crucial if we want to maintain an open web. I knew that, but never thought of what it would mean for Firefox. Or that it could really harm small eCommerce businesses who don't have an native app.

Must read!
Karlijn Löwik - RUMvision CEO

Aravind Srinivas - Cofounder & CEO of Perplexity

Perplexity has been asked to testify in the Google DOJ case. Our core points:

1. Google should not be broken up. Chrome should remain within and continue to be run by Google. Google deserves a lot of credit for open-sourcing Chromium, which powers Microsoft's Edge and will also power Perplexity's Comet. Chrome has become the dominant browser due to incredible execution quality at the scale of billions of users.

2. Android should become more open to consumer choice. There shouldn't be a tight coupling to the default apps set by Google, and the permission for OEMs to have the Play Store and Maps. Consumers should have the choice to pick who they want as a default search and default voice assistant, and OEMs should be able to offer consumers this choice without having to be blocked by Google on the ability to have the Play Store and other Google apps (Maps, YouTube).

The DOJ is pushing for Chrome to be divested from Google. We don't believe anyone else can run a browser at that scale without a hit on quality, nor the business model to be able to serve that many users profitably by keeping the browser free. Chromium is open source, and others can build using that. Evidence: Microsoft Edge and Perplexity's upcoming Comet browser.

The thing that is particularly frustrating about Google to us is how hard it is to change anything on Android. OEMs can only use a Google-approved version of Android, if they want to have core Google apps like PlayStore, Maps, etc. And "Google-approved" means keeping Google as the default search and Google/Gemini as the default voice assistants.

OEMs feel threatened about any changes here even outside the defaults, because the magnitude of revenue sharing offered to them by Google to preserve the status quo even when better alternatives are available. Eg: Perplexity's Android Assistant is regarded as superior to Gemini.

The remedy that is right in our opinion is not a breakup of Google; but rather offering consumers the choice to pick their defaults on Android without feeling the risk of a loss in revenue. That's what we will be proposing. Aravind Srinivas - Cofounder & CEO of Perplexity

David Heinemeier Hansson - CTO of 37signals and Creator of Ruby on Rails

The web will be far worse off if Google is forced to sell Chrome, even if it's to atone for legitimate ad-market monopoly abuses. Which mean we'll all be worse off as the web would lose ground to actual monopoly platforms, like the iOS App Store and Google's own Play Store.

First, Chrome won the browser war fair and square by building a better surfboard for the internet. This wasn't some opportune acquisition. This was the result of grand investments, great technical prowess, and markets doing what they're supposed to do: rewarding the best. Besides, we have a million alternatives. Firefox still exists, so does Safari, so does the billion Chromium-based browsers like Brave and Edge. And we finally even have new engines on the way with the Ladybird browser.

Look, Google's trillion-dollar business depends on a thriving web that can be searched by Google.com, that can be plastered in AdSense, and that now can feed the wisdom of AI. Thus, Google's incredible work to further the web isn't an act of charity, it's of economic self-interest, and that's why it works. Capitalism doesn't run on benevolence, but incentives.

We want an 800-pound gorilla in the web's corner! Because Apple would love nothing better (despite the admirable work to keep up with Chrome by Team Safari) to see the web's capacity as an application platform diminished. As would every other owner of a proprietary application platform. Microsoft fought the web tooth and nail back in the 90s because they knew that a free, open application platform would undermine lock-in — and it did!

But the vitality of that free and open application platform depends on constant development. If the web stagnates, other platforms will gain. But with Team Chrome pushing the web forward in a million ways — be it import maps, nested CSS, web push, etc. — is therefore essential.

This is a classic wealth vs. riches mistake. Lawyers see Chrome as valuable in a moment's snapshot, but the value is all in the wealth that continued investment brings. A Chrome left to languish with half the investment will evaporate as quickly as a lottery winner's riches. Wealth requires maintenance to endure.

Google should not get away with rigging the online ad market, but forcing it to sell Chrome will do great damage to the web. David Heinemeier Hansson - CTO of 37signals and Creator of Ruby on Rails

Theo Browne - Developer and Youtuber

Reacting to a post on “Google may be forced to sell the Chrome browser to break up what U.S. courts deem monopolistic practices”:

This would be an absolute disaster for the web
Theo Browne - Developer and Youtuber

Brian Kardell - Developer Advocate at Igalia

A "game" board that looks like the game Operation, but instead of pieces of internal anatomy there are logos for chrome, gmail, ads, adsense, android and on the board it says "Monoperation: Skill game where you are the DOJ" and the person is removing chrome, and a buzzer is going off

For a long time now, I've been trying to discuss what, to me, is a rather worrying problem: That those default search dollars are, in the end, what funds the whole web ecosystem. Don't forget that it's not just about the web itself, it's about the platform which provides the underlying technology for just about everything else at this point too.

Between years of blog posts, a podcast series, several talks, experiments like Open Prioritization I have been thinking about this a lot. Untangling it all is going to be quite complex.

In the US, the governments proposed remedies touch just about every part of this. I've been trying to think about how I could sum up my feelings and concerns, but it's quite complex. Then, the other day an article on arstechnica contained an illustration which seemed pretty perfect..

This image (credited to Aurich Lawson) kind of hit the nail on its head for me: I deeply hope they will be absolutely surgical about this intervention, because the patient I'm worried about isn't Google, it's the whole Web Platform.
Brian Kardell - Developer Advocate at Igalia

There are also two podcasts hosted by Brian Kardell and Eric Meyer that are worth checking out. One features a discussion with us, and the other with Chris Coyier:

John Gruber - Daring Fireball

Is Chrome Even a Sellable Asset?

[...]

It’s hard to come up with a buyer who could afford to pay a high price for Chrome and who would pass regulatory muster as its new owner. And if Chrome is not worth a high price, or simply isn’t sellable at one because there’s no plausible buyer, then why is the DOJ trying to force Google to sell it? They might as well try to force Google to sell the two o’s from its name.

[...]

This is the aspect of the US case against Google that most shows the DOJ has little real idea how anything actually works in tech. The non-Google aspects of Chrome are completely open source. No need for dick quotes around the “open” there. Just go to the Chromium project and download the code, which includes all of Blink, Chromium’s web engine that Google forked from WebKit in 2013. There’s even an open source project called Ungoogled Chromium that delivers a completely Google-free Chromium experience. Everything about Chromium, the browser app, looks and feels like Chrome. Except it doesn’t have any of the integration with Google’s web services and your Google account(s).

There are dozens of for-profit browsers built from the Chromium code base. Microsoft’s Edge. Brave. Vivaldi. Even the venerable Opera — a browser that first debuted in 1994! — became a forked version of Chromium a decade ago.

We know the value of a Google-free version of Chrome. Nothing. Zero. You can install and use that browser today, or even modify and compile its source code, free of charge. And if a commercial entity wants to take that base and build its own proprietary layer on top of that, they can do it. Microsoft and Brave and the others already have. And we know how popular those browsers are — which is not very popular at all.

[...]

The more I think about it, the more it looks to me like a complete fantasy that Google even could sell Chrome. It would be at least a somewhat different situation if Chrome were mostly closed source. But it’s not. In fact, it’s the opposite — it’s almost entirely open source. So what even is there to buy? John Gruber - Daring Fireball

Chris Coyier - Co-founder of CodePen, ShopTalk Podcast and Creator of CSSTricks

Google Being Forced To Sell Chrome is Not Good for the Web

[...]

It’s true that Chrome ships with Google as the default search engine, because, ya know, they invested billions in Chrome and that’s how business works. But still, a more direct line from problem to solution is forcing default search engine choice, not a forced sale of Chrome itself.

Why do I care? The sale of Chrome is bad for the web.

[...]

Google, by virtue of having Chrome, invests heavily in the web itself. Not just Chrome-the-browser, but the web standards that power the web. I can’t claim to know every detail of that investment, but I personally know people employed by Google that literally just try to make the web better all day.

[...]

Will Google continue to invest like this if they are forced to sell Chrome? It would be hard to blame them if they did not.

Assuming they find a buyer, that buyer will be scrambling to find a way to make that investment worth it. Will they be choosing to employ people who are just abstractly making the web better? I would think not.

The web will suffer should Google be forced to sell Chrome. I think a fair assumption that overall investment and contribution to the open web will take a dive. Chris Coyier - Co-founder of CodePen, ShopTalk Podcast and Creator of CSSTricks

So What Happens Now?

The remedies phase of the trial is expected to last three weeks, during which the U.S. Department of Justice and Google will present arguments, expert testimony, and rebuttals. The central question is not whether Google broke the law, Judge Amit P. Mehta has already ruled that it did, but rather what remedies are appropriate to restore competition in the search market without causing disproportionate harm to consumers or the broader digital ecosystem.

Following the hearings, Judge Mehta will deliberate and is expected to issue a final judgment later this year, likely by August 2025. His ruling will determine which, if any, of the DOJ’s proposed remedies, including the forced divestiture of Chrome and the prohibition of default search deals, will be imposed on Google.

Whatever the outcome, it won’t be the final word. Google has already stated that it intends to appeal any adverse decision, potentially setting the stage for a prolonged legal battle that could reach the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

For a much more detailed analysis, please read our paper: “Break Google’s Search Monopoly without Breaking the Web”.