The US Department of Justice’s 2020 search distribution lawsuit is a backwards-looking case at a time of intense competition and unprecedented innovation. With new services like ChatGPT (and foreign competitors like DeepSeek) thriving, DOJ’s sweeping remedy proposals are both unnecessary and harmful.

We have long said that we disagree with the Court’s decision in the case and will appeal. But first the Court must decide what remedies best address its liability decision. At trial we will show how DOJ’s unprecedented proposals go miles beyond the Court’s decision, and would hurt America’s consumers, economy, and technological leadership:

• DOJ’s proposal would make it harder for you to get to services you prefer. People use Google because they want to, not because they have to. DOJ’s proposal would force browsers and phones to default to search services like Microsoft’s Bing, making it harder for you to access Google.
• DOJ’s proposal to prevent us from competing for the right to distribute Search would raise prices and slow innovation. Device makers and web browsers (like Mozilla’s Firefox) rely on the revenue they receive from search distribution. Removing that revenue would raise the cost of mobile phones and handicap the web browsers that you use every day.
• DOJ’s proposal would force Google to share your most sensitive and private search queries with companies you may never have heard of, jeopardizing your privacy and security. Your private information would be exposed, without your permission, to companies that lack Google’s world-class security protections, where it could be exploited by bad actors.
• DOJ’s proposal would also hamstring how we develop AI, and have a government-appointed committee regulate the design and development of our products. That would hold back American innovation at a critical juncture. We’re in a fiercely competitive global race with China for the next generation of technology leadership, and Google is at the forefront of American companies making scientific and technological breakthroughs.
• DOJ’s proposal to split off Chrome and Android — which we built from scratch and make available for free — would break those platforms, hurt businesses built on them, and undermine security. Google keeps more people safe online than any other company in the world. Breaking off Chrome and Android from our technical, security, and operational infrastructure would not just introduce cybersecurity and even national security risks, but also increase the cost of your devices.

There is a better path forward — one that responds to the Court’s decision without harming consumers, or America’s economy, tech leadership, and national security. Our proposed remedies would achieve these goals by focusing on what this case is about — the contestability of search distribution contracts. You can read about our proposal in this post.

When it comes to antitrust remedies, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that “caution is key.” DOJ’s proposal throws that caution to the wind.

We look forward to making our case in court.