The Department of Justice (DOJ) doubled down on its approach to antitrust enforcement, advocating for measures during the first week of the Google search remedies trial that will harm consumers, restrict innovation, and reward Google’s competitors. At the heart of this strategy is a call for remedies that go beyond antitrust policy and the contracts at issue.

Forced data sharing will harm consumers

During testimony last week, DuckDuckGo, a Google competitor and DOJ witness, argued that any remedy imposed by the U.S. court should force Google to share search data on more than 1 billion historical queries and an API of real-time searches with less-innovative competitors to help them stay afloat. This radical suggestion is out of line with the court’s liability ruling, which was based on Google’s exclusive distribution agreements. This proposal underscores a troubling trend by the government: weaponizing antitrust to pick winners and losers at the expense of consumers.

Anshel Sag, principal analyst at technology research and advisory firm Moor Insights & Strategy told Computerworld that among CIOs and CISOs, “there is more trust in Google, simply because the company has shown that it’s serious about security and privacy. That said, OpenAI doesn’t really have that kind of a track record, and while it does work with enterprises, it is still unclear how it might handle something like a browser, and all of the responsibilities that come with maintaining that level of security.”

A breakup goes far beyond the contracts at issue 

Antitrust scholars recognize that the DOJ proposal is not based on realities of tech competition or traditional antitrust enforcement, which will only hurt legitimate cases going forward.

— In response to developments in the trial, Cornell Law Professor Erik Hovenkamp said in a thread breaking up Google, “would be like recommending amputation for highly treatable arthritis.”

— Similarly, Stanford Professor Doug Melamed said on X that the DOJ’s rhetoric “has almost nothing to do with the proper purposes of antitrust remedies. Their purpose is to redress and repair proven harms caused by illegal conduct, not to remake industries to fit the personal preferences of individuals in government.”

Adding to the chorus of concern, a recent editorial from The Wall Street Journal noted that the DOJ’s remedies have little to do with protecting consumers and are more focused on punishing success in an industry that demands constant investment and innovation. Judge Amit Mehta acknowledged that, “Google has not achieved market dominance by happenstance.” 

Google has continued to provide customers with products and services they choose over the competition time and again through continued innovation. Therefore, the editorial asks, “What’s the antitrust problem here? Unclear, but DOJ’s remedy is to punish Google anyway.”

A breakup will only benefit China

Wedbush Equity Research Analyst Scott Devitt said on Bloomberg Surveillance,”It’s not in the best interest of the U.S. government to really kneecap any of these large companies given the battle that we’re in with the large companies in China, and I think in the end they’ll come to that conclusion as well.”

As the trial continues, the implications extend far beyond one company. The outcome could set a precedent for how aggressively antitrust regulators attempt to shape the digital economy, and whether they will continue to seek to prop up competitors over consumers.

Read more about our coverage of the Google Remedies Trial here, here, and here.