Google Proposes Modifications to Address Antitrust Concerns

In the midst of a significant legal battle regarding its dominance in the online search market, Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., has introduced proposed changes to its revenue-sharing agreements with major partners like Apple. These agreements have positioned Google as the default search engine across various devices and browsers. The adjustments come after a U.S. District Judge, Amit Mehta, ruled in August that Google had engaged in anticompetitive practices that unlawfully suppressed competition in the search arena, a judgment that Google has indicated it plans to appeal.

As part of its response to this ruling, Google submitted a legal filing outlining its arguments that should allow the continuation of existing contracts with multiple companies. The company suggests several modifications that aim to promote competitive balance and user choice. These include enabling different default search engines to be designated for various platforms and browsing settings — a move that could diversify search engine options for consumers. Furthermore, Google has proposed that partners should have the option to switch their default search provider at least once every twelve months, enhancing flexibility in their agreements.

These measures stand in stark contrast to the recommendations made by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which previously suggested that Judge Mehta impose strict restrictions on Google’s revenue-sharing arrangements. The DOJ’s proposals called for Google to stop entering into these agreements altogether and, remarkably, to divest Chrome, which is recognized as the most widely used web browser worldwide.

According to Statcounter, Google’s search engine commands an impressive share of approximately 90% of global online searches, highlighting the scope of its influence in the market. In response to the DOJ’s sweeping remedies, Google criticized them as being excessively broad and expressed concerns that even its own counterproposals could incur costs for their partners.

As the situation develops, Judge Mehta is expected to deliver a ruling concerning the proposed remedies in this landmark case by August, following a comprehensive trial period.