WASHINGTON—Last night, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a proposed remedy framework filled with outlandish requests to a federal court in its ongoing effort to punish successful American innovators and break up Google.
The DOJ’s request for radical remedies in this case, which comes after the Court’s misguided ruling against Google, reveals the true and unfortunate takeaway of this effort that NetChoice has repeatedly called out: this case is about propping up Google’s competitors, even if doing so will ultimately undercut American consumers in the economy and their privacy and security online.
“The DOJ’s bid to block Google from innovating, particularly in AI, risks kneecapping American competitiveness in emerging technologies. Google’s success has provided consumers with affordable, secure and effective tools, and it now faces an unreasonable government threat for its achievements. Forcing the separation of Google’s services like Chrome and Android and restricting its advertising tools would stifle years of R&D, sending a chilling message to every single American business—if you innovate too well for customers, to the chagrin of your competitors, you will be punished. The Court should emphatically reject the government’s total disregard for the court’s narrow ruling,” said Steve DelBianco, NetChoice President & CEO.
Rather than proposing remedies focused on addressing concerns addressed in Judge Mehta’s decision, the DOJ has used this decision to propose a broad attack on Google as a business. Here are some of the government’s remedy requests, revealing the excessive reach of its effort:
1. Seriously impairing Google’s ability to innovate for the future:
Google is one of America’s most successful technology innovators because it has provided consumers with useful, efficient and low-cost tools that help them to live their lives and conduct their business better. The world is on the cusp of adopting a new technological innovation: artificial intelligence. America’s ability to lead its global competitors in the research, development and deployment of such tools requires government to stay out of the way, let creators innovate and intervene when evidence of demonstrable harm that can be proven—not theoretically conceptualized—occurs. On the new frontier of such a process in markets, it is baffling that the DOJ would severely restrict successful American tech creators from participating in legitimate market competition to benefit consumers—and the U.S. on the world stage. The future of AI will be developed in the United States or by global competitors like China. The government’s remedy framework is a miracle for America’s geopolitical foes.
2. Forcing Google to weaken its cybersecurity tools that protect its customers:
The DOJ wishes the court to force Google to share the data it collects from consumers with a broad swath of the internet ecosystem. In the DOJ’s own filing, it acknowledges the “potential user privacy concerns” that may come about as a result of this government intervention. The request from the government is shockingly explicit: they seek to curb Google’s cybersecurity tools for user data due to the complaints of its biggest competitors even though it explicitly understands Americans will be at greater risk.
3. Increasing costs for small businesses:
Digital advertising has evened the playing field and changed the way businesses—especially smaller ones—are able to reach potential customers. Companies of all sizes are now able to get their messages and products in front of audiences at a lower cost than ever before with little to no barriers to entry—greatly benefiting those companies and consumers. Google has created an innovative digital advertising product that allowed small advertisers to reach people with no minimum spend or upfront commitments. If the DOJ gets its way, this product will be sabotaged, precisely when competition in the advertising market is more fierce than ever.
4. Breaking apart core components of Google’s business:
Forcing Google to break apart from Chrome and Android will undermine decades of research and investment the company has committed to making the best products for its customers. This doesn’t merely have implications for Google—it will send a message to every American business, no matter how large or small: if your company creates a product that the government deems to be too good, all the dollars, sweat and tears you’ve poured into creating that product will be for nothing. That message will crush American innovation, global dominance and consumers by chilling R&D in the United States. This will also severely degrade the experience for American consumers, none of whom are asking for the government to make their online experiences less streamlined and more complicated.
5. Overstepping the proper boundaries of government authority:
The government’s proposed remedies go far beyond the Court’s intended legal scope regarding Search contracts. If such rules were to be adopted, it would be an unreasonable encroachment into how companies conduct business in America. This lifts the veil on the intentions of the government’s effort: this trial is about punishing Google for its success—not seeking legitimate antitrust remedies regarding legitimate evidence of consumer harm. That’s not the purpose of antitrust law in America and will have serious consequences for the wider business community and innovation more broadly.
Read here NetChoice President & CEO Steve DelBianco’s analysis of how the ultimate remedies in this case could leave Americans to pay the price.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.