Google Could Be Forced To Sell Chrome Over Search Monopoly Claims

John Grubertech commentator

Chrome is not a stand-alone business,

noted Daring Fireball's Gruber

This may be one of the dumbest moves ever,

Max Weinbach, analyst at Creative Strategies, Inc., posted on X (formerly Twitter).

Google maintains Chromium for quite a few other ISAs. Google doesn't necessarily make money off of chromium, so forcing them to sell means you essentially kill it and Google forks their own version of Chrome to stop building for the ecosystem,

he added

Kent Walkerpresident

As just one example, the DOJ's proposal would literally require us to install not one but two separate choice screens before you could access Google Search on a [Google] Pixel phone you bought,

Kent Walker, Google's Chief Legal Officer, wrote earlier Thursday on Google's official blog, The Keyword

By then, browsers or search engines as we know them today might already be obsolete,

he said

Undoing Google's overlapping and widespread illegal conduct over more than a decade requires more than contract restrictions: it requires a range of remedies to create enduring competition,

Kamyl Bazbaz, DuckDuckGo's senior vice president of public affairs, said in a statement

Google’s unlawful behavior has deprived rivals not only of critical distribution channels but also distribution partners who could otherwise enable entry into these markets by competitors in new and innovative ways,

prosecutors said

Amit Mehtadistrict Judge

The court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,

Mehta wrote in his 277-page ruling

It is probably going a little beyond,

Syracuse University law professor Shubha Ghosh said of the Chrome breakup

What you can do without breaking it up is make sure it’s more fair,

Trump said last month

John Grubertech commentator

The only way [a spun-off Chrome] could make money is through an integrated search deal,

said tech commentator John Gruber on a recent podcast

Chrome has served Google exceptionally well, but its loss would be a manageable inconvenience,

said Parry

The worst case scenario is deterioration of security and privacy of billions of users, and the rise of cybercrime on unimaginable levels,

he warned

People forget that Google's success was not a result of only having a better product,

Ramaswamy once told The Verge

Chrome is adopting web innovations really fast,

he said, giving Chrome's security features as an example of how Google has innovated

Under such a classification, Chrome's agreements and decisions would be subject to heightened scrutiny, particularly to safeguard consumer welfare and prevent exclusionary practices,

they wrote

The government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed,

she added

The precedent set by Mozilla's financial dependence on Google highlights potential challenges for Chrome in maintaining its operations without similar support,

the researchers said, nodding to the fact Google pays Firefox a lot of money to be its default search engine, despite Firefox's dwindling user numbers

To remedy these harms, the [Initial Proposed Final Judgment] requires Google to divest Chrome, which will permanently stop Google's control of this critical search access point and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet,

the 23-page filing reads

The proposed remedies are designed to end Google's unlawful practices and open up the market for rivals and new entrants to emerge,

the filing reads