US government seeks to break up Google Chrome over AI search monopoly

Justice Department pushes Chrome spinoff to limit Google’s AI-driven dominance in online search and digital ads.

The Google Chrome website is seen on a laptop in the Queens borough of New York, US, on November 18, 2024. Photo by Gabby Jones/Bloomberg

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

The United States government is urging a federal judge to force Google to spin off its Chrome browser, citing growing concerns that artificial intelligence could supercharge Google’s already dominant position in online search. At the heart of the dispute is whether Google’s integration of AI into its products, particularly search, will give the tech giant an unstoppable edge — one that regulators believe could monopolize not just web searches, but the broader internet ecosystem in the years to come.

The hearing, held Monday in Washington before District Judge Amit Mehta, marks a critical turning point in one of the most consequential antitrust cases of the modern digital era. The Department of Justice (DOJ), which has waged a multi-year legal battle against Google, is now calling for structural remedies after Mehta’s 2024 ruling that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in the search market.

“If Google's conduct is not remedied, it will control much of the internet for the next decade — not just in internet search, but in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence,” warned Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater. “Nothing less than the future of the internet is at stake here.”

This statement underscores the Justice Department’s key focus: stopping Google before AI-driven advances make its dominance even harder to challenge.

DOJ targets Chrome as AI reshapes tech power

The DOJ’s argument is rooted in the belief that Google’s widespread distribution of its search engine — especially through Chrome, the world’s most popular web browser — gives it an unfair advantage that is only deepening with AI. As Google accelerates efforts to embed AI into its core products, including search, ads, and cloud services, regulators fear the company could lock users further into its ecosystem.

Among the most radical remedies proposed is a full spinoff of Google Chrome. The DOJ also left the door open to force the company to divest its Android mobile operating system, which is installed on billions of smartphones globally.

Google, for its part, is strongly resisting the move. In a blog post responding to the DOJ’s position, Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, wrote, “The DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America's global technology leadership.”

He added, “The DOJ’s wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court's decision.”

According to Google, the lawsuit initially focused on distribution agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung, which pre-install Google Search on devices. The company contends that consumers use its search engine because they prefer it — not because of coercive contracts.

Google’s search and ad dominance under scrutiny

The stakes of the case have been raised further by another recent legal loss for Google in the advertising space. Just days before the latest DOJ hearing, a separate ruling from District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema found that Google had illegally monopolized key sectors of the digital advertising market.

In that case, the DOJ and a coalition of more than a dozen U.S. states accused Google of manipulating the ad tech market — specifically in publisher ad servers, ad exchanges, and advertiser tools. Brinkema largely agreed, ruling that Google used a series of anticompetitive actions to acquire and maintain monopoly power in at least two of those segments.

“Google has willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts,” Brinkema wrote. She found the company’s conduct particularly troubling in the way it locked publishers into using Google’s ad tools, often removing options or features that would have allowed them to work with rivals.

Though she did not fully endorse the argument regarding advertiser tools, the ruling nonetheless represents a major blow to Google’s business model. Online advertising funds much of Google’s empire — including free services such as Gmail, Maps, and the Search platform at the center of the current antitrust case.

The AI arms race and Google’s position

The push to break up Chrome comes at a time when Google is vying with rivals like Microsoft and OpenAI to lead in artificial intelligence. Billions of dollars are being poured into AI infrastructure and model development — an area where Google’s advertising revenue provides an almost unrivaled war chest.

Google’s AI investments span its Bard chatbot, Gemini large language models, and experimental AI search features. Critics argue that by embedding these tools within Chrome and Search, Google could further consolidate power, reinforcing a cycle of user data collection and algorithmic optimization that marginalizes competitors.

DOJ officials argue that without intervention, AI will be the next domain where Google exerts monopoly control. “We’ve already seen how AI can influence content visibility, drive user engagement, and determine which sites succeed or fail,” said one official familiar with the DOJ’s arguments. “If one company controls that pipeline, innovation and competition suffer.”

Google appeals, regulators press on

While Google is appealing both recent antitrust rulings, the mounting legal pressure has cast a long shadow over the company’s future. The possibility that Google could be forced to break off core assets such as Chrome or Android — once considered unimaginable — is now a real and escalating threat.

Analysts note that even the DOJ floating the idea of divestitures signals a major shift in U.S. antitrust enforcement, which has traditionally been reluctant to force breakups of large tech firms.

“Structural remedies are not something we see often in the U.S., especially when it comes to Silicon Valley giants,” said Fiona Scott Morton, a Yale economist who previously advised the European Commission. “But with AI changing the game, regulators are recalibrating.”

For now, the question remains whether Judge Mehta will agree that Chrome must be separated to restore competition — or whether the court will opt for softer behavioral remedies, such as altering Google’s default search contracts or requiring transparency around AI algorithms.

Until then, both sides are preparing for a drawn-out battle, with tech dominance, consumer choice, and the future of AI-powered search hanging in the balance.

A pivotal moment for tech regulation

As the DOJ presses its case, the situation has captured global attention. Around the world, governments are watching closely as they confront similar concerns over AI, search, and advertising monopolies. The European Union has already fined Google multiple times, and countries like India, South Korea, and Australia are tightening their digital market regulations.

In Washington, however, this case could become a landmark decision — one that reshapes how tech giants are treated in the AI age.

Whether or not Google is forced to part with Chrome, the battle lines have been drawn: regulators fear a future where one company dominates the digital landscape, and they are now betting that aggressive legal action is the only way to stop it.