Google Fights Back

I Don’t Care What Google or Apple or Whoever Did

Please do not use this post as an excuse to beat up the devs at Apple or Google. If you are doing that, you have missed the point of this post and you are being unnecessarily mean to individuals who may have no control over broader organizational decisions. Do not…

Google Is Building an A.I. Fence Around the Internet It Once Championed

As Google incorporates more artificial intelligence into search, people are spending more time on Google. Some website operators are crying foul.

Google Is Building an A.I. Fence Around the Internet It Once Championed

As Google incorporates more artificial intelligence into search, people are spending more time on Google. Some website operators are crying foul.

Google is its own worst enemy

In its bid to push AI, it’s destroying its products and trying to kill the web too

Google’s Chrome Antitrust Paradox

This Article examines Google’s dominance of the browser market, highlighting how Google’s Chrome browser plays a critical role in reinforcing Google’s dominance in other markets. While Google portrays Chrome as a neutral platform built on open-source technologies, this Article shows that Chrome is, in fact, instrumental in Google’s strategy to reinforce its dominance in the online advertising, publishing, and browser markets. The examination of Google’s strategic acquisitions, anticompetitive practices, and the implementation of so-called “privacy controls” underlines that Chrome is far from a neutral gateway to the web. Rather, it serves as a key tool for Google to maintain and extend its market power, often to the detriment of competition and innovation in the digital economy.This Article illustrates how Chrome not only bolsters Google’s position in online advertising and publishing through practices such as coercion and self-preferencing, but also leverages its advertising clout to engage in a “pay-to-play” paradigm—the cornerstone of Google’s larger strategy of market control. It also outlines potential regulatory interventions and remedies by drawing on historical antitrust precedents. Lastly, this Article proposes a triad of solutions motivated by an analysis of Google’s abuse of Chrome, including behavioral remedies targeting specific anticompetitive practices, structural remedies involving an internal separation of Google’s divisions, and divestiture of Chrome from Google into an independent organization.Despite Chrome’s dominance and its critical role in Google’s ecosystem, as well as its recent legal troubles with the Department of Justice, it so far has avoided significant antitrust action. A key reason for this inaction lies in the long-standing precedent supporting the hegemony of technology firms and the uncertainty surrounding Chrome’s viability as a standalone entity. This Article attempts to address these issues to enable antitrust actions that are essential in remedying current market imbalances. Such actions are also critical to mitigate future threats to competition from an increasingly monopolistic technology landscape, thereby fostering a competitive digital environment that promotes innovation and protects consumer interests.

Investor money vs. public interest: did Google fail to build a non-evil platform?

Don’t be evil. That was Google’s official motto, until recently.

Google hates you

"The repercussions of Google's pivot to AI will be vast and horrid."

Google is on the Wrong Side of History

Google continues to show us why it chose to abandon its old motto of “Don’t Be Evil,” as it becomes more and more enmeshed with the military-industrial complex. Most recently, Google has removed four

Hot Take: Google has a company strategy, not a product strategy

Or, Why Google keeps killing products

What the Verdict Against Meta and Google Says About the Way We Live Now

Serving as a signal of a taste in the courts and among the public to have tech companies bear some of the costs of harm that they have allegedly caused, the recent verdict against Meta and Google in California says a lot about the central anxieties of our time.

Google and Amazon: Acknowledged Risks, and Ignored Responsibilities

In late 2024, we urged Google and Amazon to honor their human rights commitments. Since then, a stream of additional reporting has reinforced that our concerns were well-founded. Yet despite mounting

Pluralistic: The worst possible antitrust outcome (03 Sep 2025) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow

Last year, Google lost an antitrust case to Biden's DoJ. The DoJ lawyers beat Google like a drum, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Google had deliberately sought to create and maintain a monopoly over search, and that they'd used that monopoly to make search materially worse, while locking competitors out of the market.

Google Faces Huge Forces in Fight Over Android's Future

Enormous--and enormously complex---forces that have gathered against Android in Europe, all stemming from a case on the other side of the Atlantic.

‘How Google Works,’ by Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg (Published 2014)

Two technology executives explain the business methods behind Google’s groundbreaking success.