DOJ’s Remedies Proposal in Google Search Case Are Punitive, Says ITIF

WASHINGTON—Following the submission by the Department of Justice (DOJ) of its proposed remedies in the Google search case, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank for science and technology policy, released the following statement from Robert D. Atkinson, president, Daniel Castro, vice president, and Joseph V. Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation:

In a radical but unfortunately not entirely unexpected move, the DOJ has put forward a remedies proposal in the Google search case that not only goes well beyond what is necessary to address the behavior Judge Mehta found to be anticompetitive, but seems geared toward effectively destroying one of America’s most innovative companies.

These proposed remedies are inappropriate, shortsighted, and entirely unrelated to addressing the alleged behavior, and courts should ultimately reject them. Rather than learn the lessons of history associated with its disastrous decision to break up AT&T, the DOJ has again decided to weaponize antitrust policy against U.S. innovation and competitiveness.

The DOJ’s requirement that Google divest Chrome—indeed, not have any browser for a five-year period—has nothing to do with preventing anticompetitive behavior, restoring competition, undoing ill-gotten gains, or making consumers whole. Judge Mehta did not find, and the DOJ never even alleged, that Google was leveraging its browser business to benefit its search business or vice versa.

What’s more, the DOJ’s contemplation of a further divestiture of Android, or at least to impose a “choice screen,” is equally flawed. Here again, not only was there no finding that Google used its market position in Android to support its position in search, but the choice screen remedy has already been tried and found wanting in Europe.

The DOJ also puts forward a series of other remedies that would prevent Google from unilaterally engaging in “self-preferencing” of its search engine—yet another behavior that the DOJ did not allege to be anticompetitive. Taken with multiple additional provisions requiring Google to share key data and technology, the DOJ would use antitrust relief as a way to essentially micromanage Google’s business.

Further, the DOJ’s proposal would severely impact U.S. competitiveness in AI, as well as the availability of AI tools for consumers. The proposal would prohibit Google from acquiring any “query-based AI product,” a stipulation that would cut off an important source of investment for AI startups and limit the ability of Google to integrate AI-based innovations into the products millions of Americans use.

The DOJ would also require Google to allow content creators to opt out of having their content used to train AI models or produce AI-generated content, an exclusive restriction that no other company would face. The result would be tying the hands of one of America’s leading AI companies at a time when it faces immense competition from foreign rivals, especially those in China.

Contact: Sydney Mack: [email protected]