Imagine the internet without Google Chrome. That’s a future the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is pushing for in a major antitrust lawsuit against Google’s parent company, Alphabet. The DOJ wants Google to sell off its massively popular Chrome browser, but Google is arguing that separating Chrome from the rest of the company is simply not feasible.
The Core of the Conflict: Can Chrome Stand Alone?
Testifying in a Washington federal court on April 25th, Google executive Parisa Tabriz laid out the company’s defense. Here’s the gist of what she argued:
- Deeply Intertwined: Chrome isn’t just a standalone product. Tabriz described it as the result of “17 years of collaboration” across many different parts of Google. Its features and performance rely heavily on this “interdependence.”
- Shared Infrastructure: Key features users rely on, like the “Safe Browse” mode that warns you about dangerous websites or the system that alerts you if your passwords have been leaked, aren’t run solely by the Chrome team. They leverage infrastructure shared across Google.
- “Impossible to Reproduce”: Because of this deep integration, Tabriz stated that trying to cut Chrome loose is “unprecedented” and that replicating its current capabilities outside of Google would be “impossible.”
Why is This Happening Now?
This fight over Chrome is part of a larger battle. Google was already found last year to have illegally monopolized the search market. Now, this three-week trial is focused on what changes should be forced on Google’s business practices.
The DOJ isn’t just targeting Chrome. They also want court orders to stop Google from paying device manufacturers (like phone makers) to make Google Search the default option. They even want these potential restrictions to cover Google’s AI efforts, including tools like Gemini.
Chrome’s Huge Footprint
It’s hard to overstate Chrome’s importance. According to web traffic analysts (StatCounter, March 2024), it’s the world’s most popular browser, used by an estimated 66% of people globally. Losing control of it would be a massive blow to Google.
The Open-Source Angle (and the Counterargument)
Interestingly, Chrome is built on an open-source project called “Chromium.” Google started Chromium, but it accepts technical contributions from other companies, including big names like Meta (Facebook) and Microsoft.
The DOJ brought in their own expert, Harvard computer science professor James Mickens. He argued the opposite of Google:
- Technically Feasible: Mickens believes selling Chrome is “technically feasible” and wouldn’t necessarily break its functionality.
- Chromium Motivation: He pointed out that even if Google sold Chrome, the company would likely still contribute to the underlying Chromium project because other browsers (including potential competitors) also use it. (Professor Mickens also served as an expert in the Epic Games lawsuit against Google regarding its Android ecosystem).
What’s Next?
The court is hearing both sides: Google argues Chrome is inseparable from its ecosystem, while the DOJ (backed by expert testimony) argues it can and should be sold off. This trial will determine if Google gets to keep its dominant browser or if Chrome will be forced to stand on its own. The outcome could significantly reshape how we access the web.
Via: