Google to court: We’ll change our Apple deal, but please keep Chrome

A court found Google liable for illegally monopolizing online search, and its remedies must reset the market and allow rivals to compete fairly. Google (obviously) disagrees that it runs a monopoly, but before it can appeal the underlying conclusion, it tries to limit the fallout if it loses.

Google’s reasoning is that search agreements were at the heart of the case, so those are what a court should target. Under the proposal, Google could not enter into deals with Android phone makers that require the addition of mobile search in exchange for access to other Google apps. It could not require phone makers to exclude competing search engines or third-party browsers. Browser companies like Mozilla would have more flexibility to set rival search engines as the default.

Perhaps the biggest concession is that this deal would specifically end Google’s long-running, multibillion-dollar search deal with Apple. It would prevent Google from entering into agreements that make Google Search the default engine on any “proprietary Apple feature or functionality, including Siri and Spotlight” in the US – unless the agreement lets Apple choose a different default search engine on its browser annually and “expressly allows” promoting other search engines.

And in a nod to some DOJ concerns that Google is locking out rival AI-powered search tools and chatbots, Google is proposing not to require phone makers to add its Gemini Assistant mobile app to access other Google offerings.

The government has proposed ten years of restrictions, but Google’s counter-proposal is just three – it claims nothing more is needed because “the pace of innovation in search has been extraordinary” and regulating a “rapidly changing industry” like search would slow innovation.

If the court accepts Google’s streamlined proposal over the DOJ’s, the company may lose out on some lucrative or strategically advantageous deals, but its business would remain intact. It wouldn’t have to fire up its Chrome browser or have the threat of an Android sales order hanging over it. And it doesn’t have to share many of the underlying signals that help it figure out how to serve up useful search results so rivals could catch up and serve as the true competitive pressure the DOJ hopes.

Both Google and the DOJ’s proposals are essentially starting points from which the judge can work. But Google is betting it may have an easier time selling a simple proposal that solves a big, specific problem raised in the lawsuit. It positions the government’s proposal as extreme and goes beyond the scope of the judge’s previous ruling, perhaps — Google will likely tell the court — even in a way that could be overturned on appeal.

This has not been received well by at least one of Google’s rivals, search engine company DuckDuckGo. “Google’s proposal attempts to maintain the status quo and change as little as possible,” spokesman Kamyl Bazbaz said in a statement. Both sides will argue their case in federal court in Washington, DC, beginning April 22.