Google makes case for keeping Chrome browser

RNZ News

3 days ago

By
Thomas Urbain
, AFP
Photo:
AFP / Anadolu Agency
Google has urged a US judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser to weaken its dominance in online search.
Rival attorneys made their final arguments on Friday (local time), before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering imposing "remedies", after a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an
illegal monopoly in search
.
US government attorneys have called on Mehta
to order Google
to divest itself of Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the internet.
They also want Google barred from agreements with partners like Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, which was the focus of the suit against the Silicon Valley internet giant.
Three weeks of testimony ended early in May, with Friday devoted to rival sides parsing points of law and making their arguments before Mehta in a Washington courtroom.
John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, told Mehta no evidence was presented showing people would have opted for a different search engine without the exclusivity deals in place.
Schmidtlein noted that Verizon installed Chrome on smartphones, even though the US telecom titan owned Yahoo! search engine and was not bound by a contract with Google.
Of the 100 or so witnesses heard at trial, not one said "if I had more flexibility, I would have installed Bing" search engine from Microsoft, the Google attorney told the judge.
Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney David Dahlquist countered that Apple, which was paid billions of dollars to make Chrome the default browser on iPhones, "repeatedly asked for more flexibility", but was denied by Google.
Google contends that the US has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of Chrome and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system.
"Forcing the sale of Chrome or banning default agreements wouldn't foster competition," said Cato Institute senior fellow in technology policy Jennifer Huddleston. "It would hobble innovation, hurt smaller players and leave users with worse products."
Google attorney Schmidtlein noted that more than 80 percent of Chrome users are outside the US, meaning divestiture would have global ramifications.
"Any divested Chrome would be a shadow of the current Chrome," he contended. "Once we are in that world, I don't see how you can say anybody is better off."
The potential of Chrome being weakened or spun off comes as rivals like Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence (AI) to work, fetching information from the internet in response to user queries.
The online search antitrust suit was filed against Google some five years ago, before ChatGPT made its debut, triggering AI fervour.
Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be a leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings.
Testimony at trial included Apple Vice President of Services, Eddy Cue, revealing that Google's search traffic on Apple devices declined in April for the first time in more than two decades.
Cue testified that Google was losing ground to AI alternatives like ChatGPT and Perplexity.
Mehta pressed rival attorneys regarding the potential for Google to share data as proposed by the DOJ in its recommended remedies.
"We're not looking to kneecap Google, but we are looking to make sure someone can compete with Google," DOJ attorney Adam Severt told the judge.
Schmidtlein contended that data Google is being asked to share contains more than just information about people's online searches, saying it would be tantamount to handing over the fruit of investments made over the course of decades.
"There are countless algorithms that Google engineers have invented that have nothing to do with click and query data," Schmidtlein said.
"Their remedy said we want to be on par with all of your ingenuity and, respectfully your honour, that is not proportional to the conduct of this case."
- AFP