Google, Chrome and default settings: What's at stake for Alphabet's anti-trust remedy

Judge Amit Mehta's decision could end company's search supremacy

Alphabet-owned Google has spent much time, money and resources trying to blunt the impact of an anti-trust remedy decision that could end its dominance.

An antitrust remedy decision that could bring an end to Google's search dominance is expected soon. During closing arguments in late May, US District Judge Amit Mehta indicated he would be likely to release his remedy order for Google by early August.

According to court filings, Mr Mehta on Tuesday asked the search company to file a brief to clarify an issue related to device manufacturers who have agreed to use the company's Chrome browser by default.

Mr Mehta gave Google until August 1 to file the brief, which likely means he is nearing a decision.

Because of lengthy litigation, which began in 2020, followed by the remedy portion of the trial, which began this year, it's easy to forget that Mr Mehta had decided in late 2024 that Alphabet-owned Google unfairly used its search monopoly to hurt competition, and as a result, harm consumers.

And in a separate antitrust case, Google was also found to have unfairly boxed out competition in search advertising by coupling its publisher advertising server and advertising exchange technologies. The search giant is appealing part of that decision.

Throughout the remedy portion of the trial, which heard testimony from technology executives, economists and regulatory experts, the Justice Department made clear that it wants Mr Mehta to enact far-reaching penalties against Google that would be a warning to other companies, while also providing more choice for consumers.

A sign in Washington District Court shows closely watched trials that could affect millions of consumers are under way. Cody Combs / The National

Federal prosecutors want Google to divest its Chrome browser from its portfolio, and it wants the tech giant to share coveted search data with competitors.

Yet, Google and its bench heavy with lawyers have pushed for a far less stringent remedy that would allow it to retain control of its Chrome browser, while also giving device manufacturers, and ultimately users, more windows of opportunity to change their default search provider within browsers.

“Our proposal allows browsers to continue to offer Google Search to their users and earn revenue from that partnership … but it also provides them with additional flexibility,” Google said during closing arguments in May.

The decision has browser companies like Mozilla, maker of the Firefox browser, walking a tightrope between wanting more market share amid Google's Chrome dominance, and also not upsetting existing revenue streams provided by contracts with Google.

“Essentially, the remedies may hand even more power to Big Tech, threatening long-term competition and the health of the open web,” read an email from a public relations firm hired by Mozilla.

Google chief executive Sundar Pichai. AFP

Google's influence is unrivalled and its deep pockets have allowed it to secure a presence on various devices through lucrative contracts with companies like Apple. Depending on the severity of the remedy, Apple could lose out on reoccurring payments from Google.

Eddy Cue, one of Apple's senior executives, took the witness box during the remedy hearings in May, claiming that Google's power was beginning to erode, with users starting to pivot from search engines to AI chatbots.

Sceptics of antitrust intervention might look at those comments and say that a harsh penalty on Google would be superfluous, and that the free market should be allowed to, eventually, dethrone the company.

Others, however, might point to the wealth that's been stockpiled from Google's search dominance, and how that wealth has enabled the company to create an arsenal of AI technologies like Gemini and its research division DeepMind, and that the Alphabet-owned company would just find ways to abuse its power in the emerging sector.

Mark MacCarthy, a senior fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown University in Washington, who has studied antitrust policy for several decades, acknowledged in a previous interview with The National that Google’s dominance presents a unique challenge for Mr Mehta.

He said that with Google's recent antitrust defeat over its advertising business and the forthcoming decision related to browsers and search dominance, there could be a large amount of co-operation between the courts involved.

But Prof MacCarthy said that the current regulatory agencies might not be up to the challenge of properly enforcing the remedy.

“My view is that this would be better done by a new digital regulatory agency,” he said.

That said, given the sweeping layoffs in the federal government under President Donald Trump, there's little indication that the White House has any appetite for a new regulatory agency.

All of the moving parts, combined with a dismantling of the federal workforce, invariably forces Mr Mehta to approach his decision with delicacy, and it will also likely work in Google's favour.

Yet, even if the remedy is all bark and no bite, it could be enough of a distraction that a technology company like Google dreads amid a rapid rise in competitors.