This week, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) battles Google in the remedies phase of its antitrust trial, an interesting development made clear how enforcement can quickly descend into the government overruling consumers and picking their own winners in the economy. OpenAI, the $300 billion AI powerhouse behind ChatGPT, testified it would eagerly bid on Google’s Chrome browser if the DOJ forces its sale. It’s a bold move from a company that commands 85% of the web generative AI chatbot market.
Contemporary antitrust enforcement has unfortunately been abandoning consumer welfare as a guiding star for some time. It is as such in danger of becoming an unmoored tool for the government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. This trial risks doing exactly that by potentially boosting OpenAI or other government favorites at Google’s expense.
The DOJ’s case is about Google’s default search agreements with companies like Apple and Mozilla. Now, in the remedies phase, the DOJ is pushing drastic measures, such as: forcing Google to sell Chrome, share its search index with rivals or even divest Android. These go far beyond addressing the court’s narrow ruling on Google’s default search agreements and show the DOJ’s real intentions here: to damage the company and restructure tech markets how the government prefers them, rather than how consumers prefer them. The traditional goal of antitrust law—to protect consumers—is nowhere to be found.
Consumers, on the other hand, value Google’s services. In 2018, the European Union forced Google to offer a choice screen to select which browser they wanted to use by default when setting up a new device. Europeans continued to pick Google themselves over these other options: it maintained a market share of around 92%, despite alternatives like DuckDuckGo and Bing literally being presented for their choosing. This shows consumers actively choose Google for its quality, not just because of defaults.
If Google’s success stems from quality, not coercion, why is the DOJ swinging so hard? The answer lies in a broader shift: progressive antitrust enforcement is a tool to reshape markets, not a shield for consumer welfare.
OpenAI’s testimony offers a glaring example of how the government’s remedies could crown new winners. Nick Turley, OpenAI’s head of product, revealed ambitions to buy Chrome for an “AI-first” browser and secure Google’s search index to bypass building their own. OpenAI isn’t a scrappy startup—it’s a $300 billion juggernaut with an 85% grip on web chatbots. As Turley told his team, “we have what we need to win.” Yet, the DOJ’s proposals would hand Google’s hard-earned assets to OpenAI, from Chrome’s 66% browser market share to a search index built with decades of hard work and billions in investment by Google.
OpenAI is simply navigating a landscape the DOJ created. No private company would pass up a government-mandated shortcut to power. But that’s the problem: the DOJ’s remedies don’t level the playing field—they tilt it toward well-funded rivals who don’t need the boost. Forcing Google to share its search index or sell Chrome doesn’t empower small innovators; it gifts assets to huge competitors like OpenAI, potentially creating new gatekeepers. This isn’t consumer protection—it’s government-orchestrated restructuring of the market that presents the DOJ as a central economic planner.
For those concerned about choice and competition in tech, we can see markets already opening up without big government intervention. Google’s VP of Global Partnerships, Peter Fitzgerald, testified that new agreements with Samsung, Motorola, AT&T and Verizon allow partners to promote rival search and AI tools. Motorola, for instance, bundles Perplexity and Microsoft’s Copilot alongside Google’s Gemini on new devices. If competitors can access the market without forced divestitures, why is the DOJ pushing remedies that reshape industries to favor players like OpenAI? It’s a sign that consumer welfare has taken a backseat to a political crusade against “big tech,” and in this instance, Google.The Google trial is a wake-up call. When antitrust becomes a tool for government design, it betrays its purpose. OpenAI’s potential windfall—Chrome, Google’s index or both—shows how far we’ve strayed from fostering competition. It’s time to refocus on what matters: letting markets, driven by consumer choice, decide who wins.