After the government pushed for Google’s breakup and accused the company of business practices that violate antitrust laws, the Mountain View, California, tech giant proposed its own solutions on Friday — restructuring its business contracts instead.
“Regulating a rapidly changing industry like search with an invasive executive order as proposed by plaintiffs would harm competition, innovation and consumers,” Google said in a court filing Friday.
The request comes after a federal judge ruled in August that the tech company had illegally maintained a monopoly in search. Google said it disagreed with the decision and plans to appeal.
Read more: Google could be forced to sell Chrome. Here’s what you need to know
Amit P. Mehta, judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is now trying to find ways to restore competition. Last month, the US Department of Justice and several states proposed solutions to solve Google’s illegal search monopoly, including forcing the company to sell Chrome.
Google’s proposed solutions are more limited than what the DOJ suggested. What the judge decides could reshape the future of the Internet and affect Google’s advertising business.
In a lawsuit, Google has proposed placing limits on its contracts with mobile device makers and wireless carriers. For example, Google suggested that it would not enter into an agreement with Apple in which it would be the default search engine unless its partners in the United States were allowed to set a different default search engine annually and promote other search services.
“We are not proposing these changes lightly. They would impose costs on our partners if they were to regulate how they choose the best search engine for their customers,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of Regulatory Affairs, said in a statement. blog post.
Mehta’s nearly 300-page ruling takes aim in part at how Google maintained its dominance by paying major companies like Apple and Samsung to make it the default search engine on web browsers and mobile devices. These agreements hindered the growth of Google’s rivals and reduced the incentive for other companies to invest in search, the judge ruled.
“The truth is that no newcomer could hope to compete with Google for the standard in Firefox or any other browser,” the judge wrote. “Google’s search and quality advantage and high revenue share payments are strong incentives to just stay put.”
Google’s default placements on Mozilla’s Firefox represented 80% of Mozilla’s operating revenue, the decision said. But Google also pays Apple more money than all its other partners combined. In 2022, Google paid Apple an estimated $20 billion so it could become the default search engine in the Safari browser.
This week, Mozilla expressed concern that some of the DOJ’s proposed fixes could harm web browsers. Possible solutions include preventing Google from entering into revenue-sharing agreements related to the distribution of its search services.
“By endangering the revenue streams of critical browser competitors, these solutions risk inadvertently strengthening the positions of a handful of powerful players,” Mozilla wrote in a blog post. Mozilla said Google was the default search engine in Firefox in the United States because it “provides the best search experience for our users.”
Besides partnerships with big tech companies, there are other ways Google maintains control over the way people access search engines. Google also uses the popular web browser Chrome and a mobile operating system Android.
Last month, the DOJ and several states urged a judge to force Google to sell Chrome. The agency also proposed requiring the tech company to display a “choice screen” in every Google browser when a user hasn’t chosen a default search engine, so people know other options are available.
Read more: Federal regulators are trying to break up Google and force the sale of Chrome as part of monopoly punishment
Other ideas the government has put forward include allowing publishers to opt out of Google using their content to train artificial intelligence tools and giving advertisers more control over ads appearing in search results are displayed.
Google opposed the government’s proposed solutions, calling the approach an “unprecedented government overreach.”
Mehta is expected to decide on solutions in August 2025.
Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to receive the latest entertainment news, analysis and insights.
This story originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
