Google faces major changes under revised antitrust judgment

The Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) marks a significant step towards dismantling Google’s search monopoly.

Following the U.S. District Court’s ruling that Google unlawfully maintained its dominance through anti-competitive practices, the United States and multiple state attorneys general have outlined a comprehensive set of remedial actions to prevent further monopolization and promote a fair digital marketplace.

At the center of this, is Google’s stranglehold on search distribution, achieved through exclusive agreements, preinstalled defaults, and financial incentives that have been deemed to effectively prevent competitors from growing in the market.

The American people’s reliance on Google’s search engine is well-known. Less understood, however, is how Google—through its unlawful and unchecked, monopolistic conduct over the past decade—secured the American people’s reliance.

Google did put forward a proposal on final remedies, however, in a footnote on page three of the RFPJ, the DOJ has said:

Google offered a competing Initial Proposed Final Judgment that ignores the
Court’s factual findings and legal holdings and instead preserves the status quo—containing only modest changes to its distribution contracts with Apple, carriers, OEMs and third-party distributors. Google’s proposal falls woefully short of restoring competition to markets that have been harmed by Google’s unlawfully entrenched monopolies and is inconsistent with remedies caselaw.

Paying for default placement as a search engine

Google is prohibited from paying Apple and other search distribution partners (e.g., smartphone manufacturers, browsers, carriers) to make Google the default search engine.

These payments have been key in freezing competition and maintaining Google’s dominance by blocking rival search engines from gaining meaningful distribution.

An exception allows Google to continue making payments to Apple for non-search-related services, but it can no longer use financial incentives to ensure its continued monopoly in search distribution.

What this could mean...

This restriction reduces Google’s ability to buy exclusivity, forcing it to compete on the quality of its search engine rather than financial incentives.

It also increases opportunities for competing search engines like Bing, DuckDuckGo and others to gain market share through more equitable distribution deals.

Google must divest its Chrome browser

The separation of Chrome from Google ensures that Google’s browser decisions no longer control search engine competition. Chrome’s dominance has historically given Google an unfair advantage in directing users toward its search engine.

What this could mean...

An independent Chrome browser will be free to choose search engine partnerships, allowing rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo to compete on a fairer footing.

Looking at this selfishly as an SEO, Google divesting Chrome may impact traditional SEO rankings. We know to an extent that Google is user Chrome to gather user experience data, along with several other signals that impact ranking, and access to this data will likely be lost - and if Google do make a deal with whoever buys Chrome, I'd imagine the exclusivity of the data (and the deal) would be influenced to allow other browsers/companies access to the same data.

Looking at this from an AI search perspective, It seemed a logical step for LLMs (including Gemini) to use Chrome for rendering, this could be affected and impact the AI race.

Which leads onto...

No more self-referencing in both search and AI

Google can no longer favor its services over competitors in search results, ads, or AI-powered search tools.

It is also barred from using its AI models (e.g., Gemini) to prioritize its products over competing alternatives. Furthermore, Google cannot leverage YouTube, Maps, or other owned assets to steer users toward Google Search.

What this could mean...

This measure ensures fair competition by preventing Google from using its platform dominance to unfairly push users toward its search engine.

It also opens the AI space for competing search engines to develop their AI-driven features without being blocked or overshadowed by Google’s ecosystem.

This is a welcome move and mirrors sanctions placed on Yandex, which forced Yandex to reduce the frequency of "owned" search features (known through translation as sorcerers) for many queries.

No more monopoly on devices

Google is banned from preinstalling its search engine as the default option on new Android and Google-owned devices (e.g., Pixel smartphones).

Instead, Google must implement a search engine choice screen on all new and existing Google browsers and Android devices, ensuring users actively select their preferred search provider.

To prevent manipulation, the choice screens must be fair, unbiased, and easy to use, ensuring users are not nudged toward selecting Google.

What this could mean...

This measure breaks Google’s dominance in default search settings, opening the market for competition. It also ensures that users are given a genuine choice when selecting their preferred search engine.

This again mirrors a sanction placed on Google in the Russian market. The Russian FAS forced Google to implement a widget that allowed all users to select their default search engine - this lead to a sharp increase in Yandex update.

How likely is it that these remedies will be implemented?

Nothing suggested in this document is 100% final.

Courts rarely enforce such drastic restructuring without negotiations and exploring all options available.

Former FTC Chairman William Kovacic has suggested that the DOJ’s demand may be a starting point for negotiation.

Google hasn't been shy in expressing their thoughts on this lawsuit:

So we know what their stance will likely be, and how aggressive their public response is may be an indication (or at least we can speculate that it is an indication) of what negotiations are going on behind closed doors.

The proposal does at least give Google back its AI investments, such as the stake in Anthropic.