The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust lawsuit against Google has reached a critical juncture. After the DOJ was successful in their case against Google’s default search deals with device makers and browsers, they are now pushing remedies to reshape how the company operates. The DOJ’s proposals include banning Google from being the default search engine on any browser, forcing Google to sell their Chrome browser, and even potentially forcing Google to sell off Android. As the court weighs these measures, the stakes are high—not just for Google, but for the millions of consumers who rely on its integrated, low-cost and world-leading services.
Antitrust law exists to ensure a competitive marketplace—not to punish success or redistribute wins. The DOJ’s suggestions, like forcing Google to share its innovations or break off parts of its business, aren’t a defense of fair play. They’re a government handout to rivals who haven’t kept pace. Antitrust should focus on protecting consumers from harm, but the DOJ’s remedies seem more about boosting competitors, with little regard for the impact on end users. As a result, many of their proposals could actually harm consumers rather than protect them.
For example, the DOJ seems to gloss over serious privacy and security concerns created by their proposals. Google securely manages its users data, but the DOJ plans to share this data with competitors, many of whom lack Google’s security track record, is reckless and threatens user privacy. Proposals to divest Chrome or separate Android from Google’s ecosystem could weaken cybersecurity for consumers nationwide. If the goal of this antitrust case is to protect consumers from harm by Google, why would the DOJ’s remedies fail to consider these major concerns?
The DOJ is pushing for structural changes and mandatory data sharing, but the evidence tying those measures to the alleged harm is weak. Antitrust isn’t a free-for-all. Instead of focusing on consumer harms, these severe remedies take direct aim at various parts of Google’s business model, in a clear attempt to dismantle the company.
The DOJ remedies also clearly focus on kneecapping Google’s ability to compete in artificial intelligence—a key frontier technology that will help define America’s place in the future. ChatGPT didn’t need a search engine to take off—OpenAI’s recent milestone of a million subscribers in an hour proves competitors can break through on their own merit. Google has even argued in this trial that many manufacturers of Android phones like Samsung and Motorola are planning on integrating AI tools from various providers. Yet the DOJ’s proposals, like forcing Google to share AI-generated search summaries or banning it from integrating Gemini into Gmail for smart email drafting, could harm consumers by delaying or banning tools that they actually want to use.
Another example would be the loss of the Pixel’s “Call Screen” feature that uses AI to fend off scammers and spammers. Yet, the DOJ’s proposed remedies would also prevent Google from integrating their AI tools with products like Pixel phones, and would leave Pixel users to cobble together less effective alternatives, opening them up to more scams and spam that Pixel phones would otherwise be able to block for them.
This case is a test of what American antitrust law should be in practice. It’s not about picking winners or settling scores—it’s about ensuring a market where competition thrives and consumers win. The DOJ’s remedies, with their mix of overreach and vague promises, lose sight of that. Privacy, security and innovation are too important to gamble on progressive crusades against America’s tech leaders.
As the court digs into this, the focus should stay on fostering a system that rewards ingenuity, not one that penalizes it. Consumer welfare depends on it doing so.