Google is backtracking on claims it could be forced to sell Chrome
- Google calls DOJ’s proposal to sell Chrome ‘radical’
- Government involvement could damage America’s technological leadership
- Unbundling Chrome from Android could have serious implications for pricing
Predictably, Google has hit back at a proposal from the US Department of Justice (DOJ), which could force the tech giant to sell Chrome as part of alleged antitrust violations.
The DOJ’s action, which is expected to be presented to a federal judge, would challenge Google’s monopolistic practices in the online search market.
In response, Google called the proposal “radical” and criticized the move as it could “hurt consumers, businesses and developers.”
Google thinks selling Chrome would be ‘radical’
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Google, declared“There are enormous risks to the government putting its thumb on the scale of this vital industry – skewing investment, distorting incentives, hindering emerging business models – all at the very time we are seeing investments, new business models and should encourage American technological developments. leadership.”
The DOJ also suggested that Google should share users’ searches, clicks, and results with competitors, but Mulholland notes that this could “create major privacy and security risks,” something the DOJ already knows.
Furthermore, Mulholland states that splitting Chrome from Android “would change their business models [and] increase the cost of devices.”
The company also proudly proclaimed that its browser is “secure, fast and free,” and that not many other companies could keep it open-source and invest as much as Google has in its browser.
Google Chrome is responsible for 66.7% of all browsing sessions across all device types (via Statcounter). For mobile it is slightly higher, at 68.0%. Considering Android accounts for 71.1% of all mobile operating systems, Chrome’s reach is clearly large.
Mulholland concluded: “Government dominance in a rapidly changing industry could have negative, unintended consequences for American innovation and American consumers. We look forward to presenting our arguments in court.”
