Google faces breakup crisis, regulatory agencies &#34;overly intervening&#34;?
After the U.S. Department of Justice indicated considering breaking up Google yesterday, Google argued that regulatory agencies are &#34;overly intervening,&#34; which is not conducive to the development of artificial intelligence technology in the United States. The Department of Justice has requested it to divest Chrome browser or Android operating system, or other &#34;structural&#34; remedies, which would tilt the situation at a &#34;critical moment of vibrant competition.&#34;
Google hopes that any remedies will focus on its contracts with companies such as Apple and Mozilla (Firefox browser manufacturer). Even so, Google believes that as long as these transactions do not require exclusivity, it should still be allowed to pay distribution fees to these partners.
On Wednesday, October 9th, a proposal submitted by the U.S. Department of Justice showed that they are considering requiring Google to sell off parts of its business to weaken the harm caused by its monopoly in the online search market. The Department of Justice also stated that they are considering how to prevent Google from unfairly leveraging its dominant position in search to gain an advantage in the competition of artificial intelligence products.
Such a complex and high-risk case will take a long time to process. It is expected that in April 2025, Judge Amit Mehta will rule on the remedies.
Google may appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but critics like Jason Kint have expressed uncertainty about whether the Supreme Court will accept the case. Implementing any remedies could take two to three years, and Google may try to settle or take proactive action to control the outcome.
If the court ultimately orders the breakup of Google, it will deal a heavy blow to Google, becoming an unprecedented event in modern U.S. corporate history - this ruling bears striking similarities to the antitrust case against Microsoft 20 years ago, but Microsoft escaped the fate of breakup back then. This will also be the largest forced breakup event for a U.S. company since AT&amp;T was split in 1984.
In the face of Google's multiple crises, Wall Street's reaction has been calm. The stock price of Google's parent company Alphabet fell by only 1.59% on Wednesday, maintaining a market value of around $2 trillion, still the fourth largest publicly traded company in the world.
<img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/cd33706e-9838-4d24-be94-d939db74782e.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/cd33706e-9838-4d24-be94-d939db74782e.png"/>
<h2>Google: Regulatory agencies &#34;overly intervening&#34;</h2>
Google's argument focuses on the &#34;overly intervening&#34; regulatory agencies, believing that forcing it to divest assets or share data with competitors would &#34;far exceed the specific legal issues in this case.&#34;
Google acknowledges that they have paid to have Google's search engine pre-installed on mobile phones and browsers, but Google states that these transactions are benign. Google compares this to deals reached between cereal companies and grocery stores for premium shelf space, where &#34;competition is just a click away.&#34;
Google states that requiring it to divest Chrome browser or Android operating system, or other &#34;structural&#34; remedies, would tilt the situation at a &#34;critical moment of vibrant competition.&#34;
In rapidly developing industries, excessive government intervention may have unexpected negative consequences for innovation and consumers in the United States. It is hard to imagine any technology more important than artificial intelligence for maintaining America's technological and economic leadership.
The Department of Justice holds a different view, suggesting that Google's ability to promote the development of artificial intelligence through its monopoly power could further solidify Google's dominant position.
Google hopes that any remedial measures will focus on contracts with companies like Apple and Mozilla (maker of Firefox browser). Even so, Google believes that as long as these transactions do not require exclusivity, it should still be allowed to pay distribution fees to these partners.
Northeastern University professor John Kwoka disagrees, stating that Google is &#34;a complex company with many ways to achieve what it wants, hence requiring broad remedies to match, including divestiture if necessary.&#34;
Kwoka points out that there have been many cases in history where companies have circumvented regulatory remedies, which is also a risk raised by the Department of Justice. Kwoka suggests that the Department of Justice may argue that structural remedies are &#34;necessary, as other methods are ineffective.&#34;
<h2>&#34;A pivotal moment of vigorous competition&#34;</h2>
The Financial Times stated that with the emergence of new search advertising competitors such as Amazon and TikTok, as well as AI startups like OpenAI and Perplexity disrupting Google's core business, Google can argue that the competition it faces is the most intense since Microsoft Bing was launched fifteen years ago.
For example, Google mentioned on Tuesday that its share of U.S. search ad spending will drop below 50% next year for the first time, mainly due to the rapid growth of Amazon's marketing business.
However, the Department of Justice successfully argued that Google's monopoly in the narrower general search engine market makes the growth of Amazon's business irrelevant in the eyes of the court. According to StatCounter data, Google still handles over 90% of online search queries.
<h2>Election results may also impact Google's fate</h2>
The outcome of the November presidential election may also affect Google's fate - Microsoft reached a settlement with the George W. Bush administration in 2001, less than a year after the Republican president took office.
However, in recent years, large tech companies have drawn dissatisfaction from both parties, and a new generation of populist conservatives, including JD Vance, Trump's vice presidential candidate, have expressed appreciation for the more aggressive anti-monopoly stance of the U.S. government.
Google's U.S. antitrust case was filed during the Trump administration, so if Trump is re-elected, it may not be unfavorable for Google

GOOG

AAPL

Google hopes that any remedies can focus on contracts with Apple and Mozilla (the maker of Firefox browser). Nevertheless, Google believes that as long as these transactions do not require exclusivity, it should still be allowed to pay distribution fees to these partners

- The U.S. Department of Justice is considering requiring Google to divest parts of its business to address its monopoly in online search, which could significantly impact the company.  
- Google argues that such regulatory intervention could hinder innovation in artificial intelligence and disrupt competition, claiming that its contracts with partners are beneficial.  
- The outcome of this case, expected by April 2025, could lead to unprecedented corporate restructuring, reminiscent of the Microsoft antitrust case two decades ago.

Facing a historic split crisis, will Google "cut" itself before the US Department of Justice?