A court found Google liable for unlawfully monopolizing online search, and that its measures would restore the market, allowing rivals to compete fairly. Google (obviously) disagrees that it's running a monopoly, but not before it can appeal That underlying conclusion, it's trying to limit the consequences if it loses.
Google's justification is that the search deals were at the heart of the case, so the court should target them. Under the proposal, Google cannot make deals with Android phone makers that require the addition of mobile search in exchange for access to other Google apps. This would not require phone makers to exclude rival search engines or third-party browsers. Browser companies like Mozilla will be given more flexibility in setting rival search engines as the default.
Perhaps the biggest concession is that the deal would specifically eliminate Google. Long-running billion-dollar exploration deal With Apple. This would prevent Google from entering into agreements that make Google Search the default engine in the US on any “proprietary Apple feature or functionality, including Siri and Spotlight” – as long as the deal requires Apple to update the content on its browser annually and ” Apparently” doesn't allow choosing a different default search engine. Allows it to promote to other search engines.
And pointing to some DOJ concerns about Google locking out rival AI-powered search tools and chatbots, Google is proposing to require phone makers to add its Gemini Assistant mobile app to access other Google offerings. Must be deprived of necessity.
The government has proposed ten years of restrictions, but Google's counterproposal is only three – it argues that nothing more than that is necessary because “the pace of innovation in search has been extraordinary” and search is a “rapidly changing industry”. Regulating will slow down innovation.
If the court accepts Google's streamlined proposal compared to the DOJ, the company may lose out on some lucrative or strategically advantageous deals, but its business will remain intact. It won't have to shut down its Chrome browser or face the threat of an Android disinvestment order. And it won't need to share many of the underlying signals that help it figure out how to serve up useful search results so that rivals can catch up and act as a true competitive pressure force, as the DOJ requires. hopefully.
The proposals from both Google and the DOJ are essentially starting points from which judges can work. But Google is betting that it might find it easier to sell a simple proposal that solves a major, specific problem raised in the testing. This is making the government's proposals too extreme and far beyond the scope of the judge's earlier ruling, perhaps — Google will likely tell the court — even in a way that could be overturned on appeal.
This has not been well received, at least by one of Google's rivals, search engine company DuckDuckGo. “Google's proposal seeks to maintain the status quo and make as few changes as possible,” spokesman Kamil Bazbaz said in a statement. Both sides will argue their case in a federal court in Washington, DC, beginning April 22.