Breaking Up Google Could Be a Disaster for Open Internet

Yahoo

08-05-2025

I am no fan of Google. But forcing the company to sell off Chrome - which is exactly what the government aims to do in an ongoing antitrust lawsuit - threatens to break the open Internet far more than it protects it.
A key component to the governments case pertains to Googles Chrome browser and argues that allowing its continued ownership of Chrome creates a monopoly. Lets look at a few alternatives: Microsofts Edge, Brave, and Opera. What do all of these have in common? Theyre all built on whats called Chromium, which is an open-source version of Chrome - with Googles components (see: spyware) stripped out. From there, developers are free to build whatever code theyd like to, such as Edges built-in Copilot and Braves native ad-blocking.
Google is under no obligation to provide its open-source Chromium foundation for competitors to use, much less continue to invest in and improve. Forcing Google to sell Chrome would risk upending this ecosystem.
It should be little surprise that none other than OpenAI has expressed interest in purchasing Chrome if it is spun off. The irony of selling off the browser from Google under the guise of breaking up monopolies only to hand it to the largest AI platform - which is currently smoking Google in the field - was apparently lost on the government.
So what? Wouldnt people be free to just switch to a non-Chromium browser?
While this is an option, its becoming less and less realistic. Edge, Brave, and the like are fast, and they feel like using Chrome because theyre built on the same source code. There are only two mainstream alternatives out there away from this foundation, and both have their own issues. There is Safari, but that only works on Apple software. Alternatively, Mozillas Firefox is the last major browser to run on an engine independent from Chromium. However, it has been steadily declining in terms of performance and was recently embroiled in a PR crisis over privacy concerns. For the vast majority of users seeking a high-quality alternative to Chrome, Chromium is going to be the way to go.
A second part of the governments case rests on the fact that Google has struck deals with different companies to make themselves the default search engine, including in Firefox. I have always found the case that making a search engine set as the default to be "monopolistic" to be extremely weak - Edge sets Bing as the default, which many users change immediately.
However, this initially trivial complaint could have disastrous consequences for competition. Google has long paid Mozilla - among many other companies - to be the default search engine in Firefox, which has become their largest revenue source in recent years. The companys CFO testified last week that without the Google search deal, Firefox could be "doomed." Such a ruling could plausibly put an end to the last alternative to Chromium across platforms. Because, you know, monopolies.
As is so often the case with government intervention, they spot what they perceive to be "bad behavior" and attempt to remedy it with alternatives that are often worse than the problem they set out to fix. The real-world fallout from this case could be quality alternatives to Chrome such as Edge and Brave losing access to the open-source bedrock theyre built on, and the complete collapse of Firefox itself. You need not be a fan of Google to recognize the potentially disastrous consequences this could have for the Internet as we know it.
Kyle Moran is a political commentator with Young Voices, specializing in international affairs and national security. He graduated from the University of Rhode Island, and his work has been published widely from RealClearPolitics to the Washington Examiner.