What the Experts Are Saying: The DOJ’s Google Remedies Could Harm Consumers, Innovation, and Privacy
Steve Moore, co-founder of Unleash Prosperity:
— “The latest reports are that the courts may require Google to sell off its popular Chrome browser. (To whom? China?) It may also require Google to surrender other products to help erase its market lead. With a market cap of roughly $2 trillion, Google is one of the five most profitable companies in the world. It got there by offering a free search engine service to hundreds of millions of people. This may be the largest benefit to consumers of any company ever.”
— “Biden anti-trust insanity against American companies only paves the way for foreign companies to gain dominance.”
— “…demanding that Google give away the result of nearly three decades of development and innovation instead of simply addressing the problem at hand — is too much”
— “[W]hat both [EU and US] regulators wish to do is diminish and destroy the value of what has already been built, with nary a consideration about whether consumers benefit or not. It does, frankly, explain why I’ve done basically a 180 on antitrust enforcement generally: there are a lot of problems with big tech, and genuine abuse, but if the remedies are fueled by animus about success I want off the train.”
Professor Herbert Hovenkamp, University of Pennsylvania:
— “Targeting big tech as the Biden administration did was bad politics, but it was also bad antitrust. Antitrust policy should target industries that show oligopoly, slow innovation, lack of entry, and high prices. The move to protect workers was well justified, but not big tech.”
— “There’s so much rhetorical clutter. For example, the association between “corp monopoly” and “big tech,” even though the vast majority of Americans reap benefits from it that exceed losses by many times”
John Gruber, co-creator of Markdown markup language:
— “Chrome, in and of itself, isn’t very valuable to anyone other than Google itself. The value Chrome holds to Google is inextricably tied to Chrome’s default integration with Google search and other Google web apps…. It’s like saying I have to sell my left foot. It’s very valuable to me, but of no value to anyone on its own:
Matt Schruers, CCIA President & CEO
— “The DOJ’s proposed remedies go far beyond Judge Mehta’s ruling. This mixed bag of structural and behavioral remedies would reshape numerous industries and products, harming consumers and innovation in these dynamic markets.”
Trevor Wagener, Director of the Research Center & Chief Economist, CCIA:
— “The 2024 election made one thing abundantly clear: consumers are fed up with rising prices…Against this backdrop, the incoming Second Trump Administration must assess policy proposals with an eye toward their direct impact on the average household budget.”
— “Breaking up tech leaders is not a costless public initiative. It may not just fail to deliver meaningful benefits, but actually harm consumers by increasing prices, dismantling free services, and destabilizing the very ecosystems that have driven digital innovation.”
Adrian Moore, Reason Foundation:
— “Users so overwhelmingly prefer Chrome to other browsers it’s astonishing. So much so that some, including a judge, think it must be a manipulative outcome. But the evidence of its consumer preference is overwhelming.”
Pat Hedger, Director of Policy, Netchoice:
— “Biden’s DOJ wants Google to sell-off its Chrome browser, restrict AI and force data-sharing with rivals. Those so-called “remedies” are totally unrelated to the search engine default at the core of this case. It would subsidize Google’s less-innovative competitors, while punishing Google for the crime of having the best product—abandoning consumer welfare for crony welfare.”
— “Kanter’s fantastical remedies like Chrome divestiture and AI opt-outs have no connection to the Justice Department’s original case, and requiring Google to share data with rivals will only make Google search worse for consumers. Kanter is more fixated on immortalizing himself on his ‘antitrust Mount Rushmore’ than he is in carving remedies that will hold up in court.”
Michael Petricone, Consumer Technology Association (CTA):
— “DOJ’s push to force Google to divest Chrome is a misguided move that would harm innovation and consumer choice. This radical agenda harms US tech leadership and benefits our foreign rivals. Let’s focus on fostering innovation, not punishing success.”
Drew Hudson, General Counsel for TechNet, Former DOJ and U.S. Senate:
— “The leaked plan of The Justice Dept to force Google to break the Android ecosystem, sell off Chrome, give control of the user experience to advertisers, and sell your data to third parties is dangerous and should worry everyone who cares about American tech leadership.”
— “Google products wouldn’t be the only ones suffering at the hands of out-of-control antitrust enforcers. 89% of developers believe that fragmenting the development ecosystem like this would introduce security flaws while reducing app quality and innovation.”