The DOJ Still Wants Google to Sell Off Chrome

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.

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 can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts | Hacker News

The True Cost of Browser Innovation: Why Chrome's Divestiture Wouldn't End the Open Web

It is crucial for the public to understand that the web’s growth and innovation need not depend on Google’s monopoly or control, writes Alissa Cooper.

Google Being Forced To Sell Chrome is Not Good for the Web

You’ve got a monopoly on lemonade because you pay all the grocery stores to be the default lemonade. So we’re going to force you sell your car. What’s with the weird redirect? If …

The Technical Feasibility of Divesting Google Chrome – Knight-Georgetown Institute

As the European Commission advances efforts under the Digital Markets Act to require Google to share its search data with competitors, lessons from historic antitrust remedies underscore how data access could be transformational in the AI-powered search market. While the Commission’s proposals represent a novel and comprehensive approach, key improvements to data scope and sharing frequency, privacy protections, and dispute resolution are needed. US courts and enforcers charged with implementing similar provisions should take note.

Google fends off news publishers' antitrust lawsuit over online search

Alphabet's Google won a ruling dismissing a lawsuit that accused the tech giant of monopolizing the U.S. online news market and exploiting its dominance in search ​to extract publishers' content without payment.

Judge dismisses antitrust lawsuits over Google’s AI Overviews

Chegg and PMC’s claims don’t stand up to antitrust laws, a judge ruled.

Google Backs Down: Will Grant Hotseat in EU Browser Choice Screen - Open Web Advocacy

In a significant win for smaller browsers, the open web, and the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Google has agreed to place the browser selected through the EU…

A Chrome-killing browser will be OpenAI's next big shot at Google, according to a new report

Is BrowserGPT in the cards? It’s a long way off, if it is…

Google is its own worst enemy

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

Commission fines Google €890 million for breaches of the Digital Markets Act

Today, the European Commission took two decisions finding non-compliance by Google with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) for self-preferencing its own services on Google Search, and for putting in place restrictions on businesses to direct consumers to alternative, often cheaper, purchase channels on Google Play (steering). In this regard, the Commission issued Google a fine of €460 million and a fine of €430 million respectively.

The Web Can Thrive Without Google’s Search Monopoly

Viable browsers and meaningful contributions to web standards can be sustained with more modest revenue streams, writes Alissa Cooper.

Forget the Fate of Chrome, Focus on the Fate of the Browser

In debating what undoubtedly won't happen, we're looking past some key things that are -- and might...

Defending an open web: What the Google search ruling means for the future | The Mozilla Blog

Last week, Judge Amit Mehta issued a ruling in the remedies proceedings of the U.S. v. Google LLC search case. Among the issues addressed, one key aspect t