Google Won’t Be Forced to Sell Chrome, But Must Share Search Data With Rivals

Category: Regulation

U.S. Court Mandates Google to Share Search Data with Competitors

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling requiring Google to share specific search data with competitors, while permitting the company to maintain ownership of its Chrome browser.

Impact of the Court Decision

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division announced the decision as part of efforts to address Google’s longstanding monopoly in the search market. The court’s ruling focuses on dismantling exclusionary agreements that limit competition, without necessitating the sale of Chrome.

Key Provisions

• Google is prohibited from maintaining exclusive distribution contracts for its Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and Gemini app across devices and platforms.
• Licensing agreements cannot require the placement of Google’s search products, nor can they tie revenue-sharing to maintaining Google Search as the default for over a year.

Data Sharing Requirements

Google is required to provide certain search index and user-interaction data to qualified competitors. This measure aims to reduce barriers for the development of alternative search engines, thus fostering competition.

# Example of potential API structure for mandated data access
class SearchDataAPI:
    def get_search_index(self, query_parameters):
        # Return anonymized search index data
        pass

    def get_user_interaction_metrics(self, competitor_id):
        # Provide aggregated user behavior patterns
        pass

Syndication of Search Services

The ruling also obligates Google to offer syndication services for search and search text ads, enabling competitors to utilize Google’s advertising infrastructure to enhance their capabilities.

Legal Background

This case, initiated in October 2020, was supported by 49 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia. Following extensive trials, the court concluded that Google had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining a monopoly over approximately 90% of U.S. search queries.