4 things advertisers need to know about the Google search remedies hearing

Over the last three weeks, the U.S. Justice Department and Google have squared off in court over how to address Google’s illegal monopoly over search — and what should be done about it.

That’s not to be confused with the recent Google ad tech monopoly ruling, which stems from a separate case.

Here’s a refresher on the search case: Last August, Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled that the company illegally maintained its monopoly in general search services and general search text advertising, largely through distribution agreements that “are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects.”

Now, the focus turns to remedies — as in, what can be done to address Google’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition — after arguments from the DOJ and Google. Mehta is expected to issue a decision by August, and the implications for advertisers could be seismic.

Here are four key takeaways from the remedies hearing:

1. The DOJ wants Google to sell Chrome and open search data to rivals.

The DOJ called on Mehta to break up Google by ordering it to sell its Chrome browser, which would have major implications for its advertising business.

The DOJ also proposed that Google make some of its user data, such as people’s search history, available to competing search engines.

In his ruling, Mehta pointed out that Google had an advantage against search rivals, and thus an advantage in advertising, because of the company’s default search agreements — such as with mobile device makers.

“Most devices in the United States come preloaded exclusively with Google,” he wrote. “These distribution deals have forced Google’s rivals to find other ways to reach users.”

2. Google’s CEO called the proposals “far-reaching.”

Google CEO Sundar Pichai pushed back last week, testifying that the DOJ’s proposals were “far-reaching” and could effectively allow rivals to “reverse engineer” Google Search. He also warned there seemed to be no meaningful privacy protections.

Elizabeth Reid, Google’s head of search, took it further, arguing that the DOJ’s plan to force Google to syndicate search data to competitors would “deeply undermine user trust.” She said users might avoid searching for sensitive topics if they believed Google could no longer protect their data — and warned that smaller search engines could become targets for hackers once given access to Google’s signals.

Google said it plans to appeal the ruling once remedies are finalized.

3. The DOJ's proposed remedies are also focused on AI.

The DOJ argued that Google’s search monopoly also gives it an advantage in AI.

The hearing revealed that Google pays Samsung an “enormous sum” to preinstall its Gemini AI chatbot on devices. Pichai said that that Google is also seeking a similar distribution agreement with Apple.

“This court’s remedy should be forward-looking and not ignore what is on the horizon,” DOJ attorney David Dahlquist said.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president or regulatory affairs, countered that the DOJ’s proposals would “hold back American innovation at a critical juncture.”

4. Yahoo and OpenAI expressed interest in buying Chrome.

If Google is forced to sell Chrome, there are already suitors lining up.

Brian Provost, the GM of Yahoo Search, testified that Yahoo “would be able to pursue” Chrome with backing from its owner, Apollo Global Management. He called Chrome “arguably the most important strategic player on the web.”

Nick Turley, the head of product for ChatGPT at OpenAI, said his company would also make a bid for Chrome. The AI company, for its part, has considered whether to include advertising in its products.

Turley said that integrating ChatGPT into Chrome would deliver users an “AI-first experience.” He emphasized the importance of user choice in driving competition.

“People discover via a browser or via an app store,” Turley said. “Real choice drives competition. Users should be able to pick.”