The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) today shared a broad outline of radical changes it may demand as part of its lawsuit over how we distribute Search. This is the start of a long process and we will respond in detail to the DOJ’s ultimate proposals as we make our case in court next year. However, we are concerned the DOJ is already signaling requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case.

This case is about a set of search distribution contracts. Rather than focus on that, the government seems to be pursuing a sweeping agenda that will impact numerous industries and products, with significant unintended consequences for consumers, businesses, and American competitiveness. The DOJ’s outline also comes at a time when competition in how people find information is blooming, with all sorts of new entrants emerging and new technologies like AI transforming the industry.

Here are some of the changes the DOJ is considering, and where we see the risk of unintended consequences:

• Forcing Google to share your search queries, clicks, and results with competitors risks your privacy and security. It’s widely recognized, including explicitly by the DOJ in its outline, that forcing the sharing of your searches with other companies could create major privacy and security risks. The search queries you share with Google are often sensitive and personal and are protected by Google’s strict security standards; in the hands of a different company without strong security practices, bad actors could access them to identify you and your search history — as we’ve seen before. Additionally, while sharing Google’s search results with others might create a few copycats, it could also decrease incentives for other companies to actually innovate in search.
• Hampering Google’s AI tools risks holding back American innovation at a critical moment. Not only is AI a new industry, but it’s hard to think of a technology more important for America’s technological and economic leadership. Business models in AI, much less winners and losers, have yet to be determined, and competition globally is fierce. There are enormous risks to the government putting its thumb on the scale of this vital industry — skewing investment, distorting incentives, hobbling emerging business models — all at precisely the moment that we need to encourage investment, new business models, and American technological leadership.
• Splitting off Chrome or Android would break them — and many other things. We’ve invested billions of dollars in Chrome and Android. Chrome is a secure, fast, and free browser and its open-source code provides the backbone for numerous competing browsers. Android is a secure, innovative, and free open-source operating system that has enabled vast choice in the smartphone market, helping to keep the cost of phones low for billions of people. Because both Chrome and Android help people access the web and use our products, we offer them (and their underlying code) for free. Few companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do. Make no mistake: Breaking them off would change their business models, raise the cost of devices, and undermine Android and Google Play in their robust competition with Apple’s iPhone and App Store. In addition:
  • Because Android and Chrome are used by so many developers and device makers across different industries — from cars to fitness devices to TVs to laptops to apps and more — changes could impact many businesses and the people who use their services.
  • Features like Chrome’s Safe Browsing, Android’s security features, and Play Protect benefit from information and signals from a range of Google products and our threat-detection expertise. Severing Chrome and Android would jeopardize security and make patching security bugs harder.
• Changes to the online advertising market would make online ads less valuable for publishers and merchants, and less useful for consumers. Google’s innovative ads system has leveled the playing field for small businesses and publishers. Small advertisers can reach customers the same way as large ones do — with no minimum spend and no upfront commitments. And this ads system helps small websites earn revenue from online advertising, just like large publishers. Government-mandated changes could disrupt this, and tilt the field at the precise moment that competition is thriving.
• Unreasonable restrictions on how Google promotes our search engine would create friction for consumers and harm businesses. Overbroad restrictions on distribution contracts designed to make Google Search easily available would create friction for people who just want to easily search for information. And those restrictions would reduce revenue for companies like Mozilla (reducing its ability to invest in its own browser) and Android smartphone makers (potentially raising phone prices).

We believe that today’s blueprint goes well beyond the legal scope of the Court’s decision about Search distribution contracts. Government overreach in a fast-moving industry may have negative unintended consequences for American innovation and America’s consumers. We look forward to making our arguments in court.