Last year, a federal judge ruled in favor of Biden’s Justice Department in its antitrust crusade against Google. The case is over the company’s agreements with various businesses for the placement of its search engine, and the trial has now moved into the next step, which is critical for the future of American innovation: the remedies phase.
This week, the Phoenix Center released a new brief exploring the suggested remedies and encouraging the court to take a measured approach with targeted behavioral remedies, rather than taking draconian steps to restructure Google, like breaking up Android and Chrome from the company and preventing them from investing in AI firms, as Biden’s DOJ suggested. Doing so would hamper American success and global competitiveness in technological innovation.
The Phoenix Center’s policy bulletin, “Measured Steps: Option Value Theory and Google Antitrust Remedies,” takes a thoughtful approach by applying option value theory—an economic model that weighs intervention under uncertainty. In disruptive industries like tech, where new tools like artificial intelligence (AI) reshaping how users find and consume information, regulators must avoid irreversible decisions that could stifle competition rather than foster it.
The report highlights a few key concerns:
- Weak Causal Evidence: The Biden DOJ’s case rests on the assumption that default agreements alone have locked in Google’s dominance. However, Google’s market position is also driven by product quality, brand trust and user preference. Structural remedies that assume defaults are the only driver of market power risk punishing success instead of addressing consumer harm.
- Irreversible Damage: Breaking up Google would have long-term consequences that cannot be reversed once executed. If structural remedies don’t work as intended, the damage to innovation, investment and the broader internet economy could be permanent.
- The AI Disruptors: The search market is already undergoing seismic changes with AI-driven competition. New entrants, from OpenAI’s ChatGPT, X’s Grok, and China’s DeepSeek to Perplexity AI, are challenging traditional search models. Implementing structural remedies in such an uncertain landscape could create unintended distortions rather than fostering genuine competition.
Rather than rushing to dismantle Google, the court should take a measured approach—starting with targeted behavioral remedies. The Phoenix Center suggests that modifying Google’s agreements to prevent exclusionary effects, combined with ongoing monitoring, could be a more effective and less disruptive resolution.
This strategy would allow the court to preserve their options if future market dynamics require a different intervention. It also ensures that any remedies imposed today don’t unintentionally harm consumers, weaken innovation or give foreign competitors an edge.
Breaking up Google only satisfies progressive activists and would do more harm than good. Policymakers must recognize that free market competition is not static, and forcing drastic structural changes without clear evidence could weaken American tech at a time when our global leadership is critical and AI tools are quickly upending the market.
By focusing on targeted remedies, regulators can address concerns while preserving flexibility for future interventions. This balanced approach ensures that antitrust law serves consumers, fosters innovation and avoids the pitfalls of heavy-handed regulatory action.
Instead of breaking what isn’t broken, let’s focus on solutions that promote consumer welfare without endangering the very innovations and investments that make American technology thrive.