The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and several U.S. states filed a series of relief proposals Wednesday evening in the case U.S. v. Google, barely meeting the filing date set by the judge, November 20. As rumor has itThe federal agency recommended that Google be forced to divest its Chrome web browser to deprive the company of the main distribution point for its antitrust abuses in search and online advertising.

But the DOJ’s (and states’) recommendations go well beyond that.

The ministry also recommends that Google be forced to divest from Android or make major behavioral changes that prevent it from abusing its mobile operating system; end exclusion agreements with Apple, Samsung and others; allow third parties to access its research results and other data; make major changes to its advertising activity; and make other changes.

“For more than a decade, Google has illegally maintained its monopolies in general search services and text advertising through a web of anticompetitive practices.” DOJ and States File Memos. “Google manipulated its control over Chrome and Android for its own benefit, while sharing monopoly profits on terms designed to incentivize third parties across the ecosystem to help Google maintain its monopolies. Google’s exclusionary behavior has, among other things, made Google the near-universal default provider for search and ensured that virtually all search access points carry valuable queries and interaction data from users to Google. Google’s illegal behavior has deprived its competitors not only of essential distribution channels, but also of distribution partners who could otherwise allow competitors to access these markets in new and innovative ways. Google’s behavior has had significant anti-competitive effects, causing “market foreclosure”, “preventing competitors from reaching a certain scale” and “diminishing competitors’ incentives to invest and innovate”.

Federal Judge Amit Mehta asked the DOJ and states to propose remedies that would “prevent future violations and eradicate existing ills” while providing a “comprehensive framework” to restore competition. That’s a high bar, and it appears the agency has struggled to meet all of these requirements, in part because the different components of Google’s business are so closely intertwined and designed to work in harmony to to protect and extend its domination.

We will debate the details endlessly, but Judge Mehta’s requirements for possible relief are clear. Google has illegally maintained and expanded its monopolies in online (text) advertising on search engines, and must be prevented from doing so in the future. These markets must be open to competition. And Google must be denied the benefits arising from its abusive behavior.

“The playing field is not level due to Google’s behavior, and Google’s quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an illegally acquired advantage,” the filing explains. “The remedy must fill this gap and deprive Google of these advantages. Restoring competition in the general advertising and text advertising markets as they exist today will require reactivating the competitive process that Google has long stifled.

This is what the DOJ and the States have proposed.

End all “pay for play” exclusion contracts. Google must “end third-party payments” to Apple, Samsung, Mozilla and others “that exclude competitors by privileging Google and discouraging pro-competitive partnerships that would provide new entrants with access to efficient and effective distribution.” It must also end the “self-distribution” of its search and advertising products and services on Pixel, Android and elsewhere,

Get rid of the Chrome web browser. Chrome is “a key method of distributing search to consumers” and Google must therefore be forced to divest the browser “so that its competitors can pursue distribution partnerships that this ‘reality of control’ prevents today.” Google should be prohibited from owning or investing in any web browser or any related products, including “query-based AI products.”

Opting out of Android mobile OS Or. Android is also “a key method for distributing search to consumers,” but here the DOJ gives the judge two options: force Google to divest the mobile operating system or require the company to make behavioral changes under federal oversight that would “blunt Google’s capacity.” to use its control over the Android ecosystem to further its general search services and search text ad monopolies, as well as to limit Google’s ability to discriminate in favor of its own search and advertising activities. announcements. If Google returned to its illegal behavior, the Court could then “return to the first option”.

Prevent Google from engaging in “self-preferring” behavior. Because it has systematically hijacked organic search results to direct users to its own products and services in search, Google must be prevented from doing so in the future.

Prevent Google from acquiring or investing in AI, browser, search or advertising companies. To prevent future abuse, Google should be “prohibited from owning or acquiring interests in competing AI products, potential entrants, and competing search or search ad-related AI products, and he must immediately transfer all these interests which he possesses.”

Require Google to give third parties access to its search index, results and other related data. “Through its illegal conduct, Google accumulated a staggering amount of data over many years, at the expense of its competitors,” notes the DOJ. To remedy this “acquired anti-competitive advantage”, Google must be forced to make its search index accessible at marginal cost and on an ongoing basis to its current and potential competitors; provide current and potential competitors with user-side and advertising data for a period of ten years, free of charge and on a non-discriminatory basis; provide publishers, websites and content creators with data mining rights; syndicate its research results for ten years and more.

Force Google to reduce switching costs in online advertising. Because Google charges “supracompetitive” prices for online advertising and related services, it must now provide advertisers with “the information, options and visibility into the performance and cost of Google text ads necessary to optimize their advertising on Google and its competitors. In short, it must stop the degradation of online advertising, which has been done for its own benefit by paying advertisers less.

Deploy a technical committee to oversee Google’s compliance. As Google cannot be trusted to simply comply with the Court’s decision, a technical committee will need to be created to ensure compliance. Here, the DOJ cites similar (and successful) surveillance of Microsoft following the United States v. Microsoft case 20 years ago.

Stop Google from avoiding solutions. The solution must prevent Google from “thwarting or circumventing the Court’s final judgment by manipulating the development and deployment of new technologies such as query-based AI solutions that offer the most likely long-term path for a new generation of research competitors, which will depend on the absence of anti-competitive constraints to evolve into full-fledged competitors and competitive threats.

Prevent Google from retaliatory behavior. Since Google’s partners will inevitably seek more profitable partnerships as a result of this decision, the company must be prevented from retaliating against these partners.

“As outreach and third-party discovery on Google is ongoing, the plaintiffs (the DOJ and the US states involved in the case) will continue to investigate and evaluate the remedies necessary to restore competition to the markets concerned”, notes the file. “Plaintiffs reserve the right to add, remove or modify the provisions of the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment) as necessary after further engagement with market participants and discovery of additional solutions.”

Judge Mehta will hold hearings in early 2025 at which Google, the DOJ and the states can present their final arguments on the proposed solutions. And he said he would make his final decision by August 2025.

Google released a public statement on these proposals. Interestingly, the company agrees that it makes sense to end its exclusion agreements with Apple, Samsung and Mozilla. But he says the DOJ’s proposals go far beyond the requirements of the ruling against him.

“The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) tonight filed a stunning proposal to make sweeping changes to Google services.” Kent Walker, Google’s chief legal officer, writes. “The DOJ has chosen to promote a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and their global technological leadership. The DOJ’s extremely broad proposal goes well beyond the Court’s decision. It would break a line of Google products – even beyond search – that people love and find useful in their daily lives… The DOJ’s approach would result in unprecedented government interference that would harm consumers, developers and small businesses Americans – and would jeopardize the global economy and the American economy. technological leadership precisely when it is most needed.

Google will file its own proposal in December, Walker said, and will present a “broader case” at hearings in early 2025. He also notes that this is just the beginning of a “long (appeal) process.” ”, which is fair. Enough is enough: Google will obviously fight this every step of the way, as it should.

But his comments echo the belligerent language Microsoft used with antitrust regulators before finally bowing to the inevitable, realizing it was better to work with regulators and the courts to have a say in the changes to come. For now, we can just wait and see where Justice Mehta lands. So far, he hasn’t been very supportive of Google’s wishes.