COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, along with 37 other attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice, has supported a proposal aimed at addressing concerns over Google’s business practices in the internet search and advertising markets. The “Proposed Final Judgment,” submitted in federal court, seeks to introduce measures designed to enhance competition and protect consumer choice.
The proposal follows a court ruling that found Google had violated antitrust laws under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. It outlines remedies intended to resolve issues related to Google’s market dominance and to foster a more competitive environment in general search and search advertising services.
Highlights of the Proposed Final Judgment
The judgment includes structural and behavioral remedies to address the identified issues:
- Structural Changes
- Divestiture of Chrome Browser: Google would be required to sell its Chrome browser to an independent buyer.
- Potential Sale of Android: If competition does not improve or if compliance issues arise, Google may also be required to divest its Android operating system.
- Behavioral Remedies
- No Exclusive Agreements: Google would no longer be allowed to require publishers or distributors to exclusively use its services, allowing more opportunities for competitors.
- Choice Screens: Users would be given the option to select their default search engine on devices, browsers, and other platforms to encourage fair competition.
- Data Sharing and Transparency
- Search Index and User Data: Google would share search index data and non-discriminatory user data with competitors while maintaining privacy and security standards.
- Advertising Transparency: Advertisers would receive detailed reports on ad performance, with access to exportable data for analysis.
- Compliance Oversight
- Independent Monitoring: A five-person technical committee would be tasked with overseeing Google’s adherence to the judgment. Google would also appoint an internal compliance officer.
Long-Term Oversight
The judgment, proposed for a 10-year period, also includes measures to prevent circumvention, ensuring compliance with the outlined provisions. Google would be responsible for covering the legal fees incurred by the plaintiffs.
Coalition Involvement
The coalition supporting this effort includes attorneys general from 37 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The coordinated action reflects a shared interest in addressing concerns related to competition and consumer choice in the digital marketplace.
“Greater choices and transparency are the framework for true competition,” Yost stated. “Addressing these concerns is essential to ensuring fairness for consumers and businesses alike.”
Background on the Lawsuit
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2020, focuses on Google’s alleged use of exclusionary contracts and bundling practices to maintain its position in search and advertising markets. The proposed judgment builds on the court’s findings, aiming to restore balance in the marketplace by opening opportunities for smaller competitors.
Next Steps
If approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the judgment would impose significant changes on Google’s operations and serve as a precedent for addressing antitrust concerns in the tech industry. The goal is to create a more competitive landscape while providing greater transparency and choice for consumers and advertisers.
This development represents a key step in the broader effort to ensure fair practices in the digital economy. For Ohio and the other states involved, the focus remains on supporting measures that encourage competition and protect consumer interests.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, along with 37 other attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice, has supported a proposal aimed at addressing concerns over Google’s business practices in the internet search and advertising markets. The “Proposed Final Judgment,” submitted in federal court, seeks to introduce measures designed to enhance competition and protect consumer choice.
The proposal follows a court ruling that found Google had violated antitrust laws under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. It outlines remedies intended to resolve issues related to Google’s market dominance and to foster a more competitive environment in general search and search advertising services.
Highlights of the Proposed Final Judgment
The judgment includes structural and behavioral remedies to address the identified issues:
- Structural Changes
- Divestiture of Chrome Browser: Google would be required to sell its Chrome browser to an independent buyer.
- Potential Sale of Android: If competition does not improve or if compliance issues arise, Google may also be required to divest its Android operating system.
- Behavioral Remedies
- No Exclusive Agreements: Google would no longer be allowed to require publishers or distributors to exclusively use its services, allowing more opportunities for competitors.
- Choice Screens: Users would be given the option to select their default search engine on devices, browsers, and other platforms to encourage fair competition.
- Data Sharing and Transparency
- Search Index and User Data: Google would share search index data and non-discriminatory user data with competitors while maintaining privacy and security standards.
- Advertising Transparency: Advertisers would receive detailed reports on ad performance, with access to exportable data for analysis.
- Compliance Oversight
- Independent Monitoring: A five-person technical committee would be tasked with overseeing Google’s adherence to the judgment. Google would also appoint an internal compliance officer.
Long-Term Oversight
The judgment, proposed for a 10-year period, also includes measures to prevent circumvention, ensuring compliance with the outlined provisions. Google would be responsible for covering the legal fees incurred by the plaintiffs.
Coalition Involvement
The coalition supporting this effort includes attorneys general from 37 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The coordinated action reflects a shared interest in addressing concerns related to competition and consumer choice in the digital marketplace.
“Greater choices and transparency are the framework for true competition,” Yost stated. “Addressing these concerns is essential to ensuring fairness for consumers and businesses alike.”
Background on the Lawsuit
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2020, focuses on Google’s alleged use of exclusionary contracts and bundling practices to maintain its position in search and advertising markets. The proposed judgment builds on the court’s findings, aiming to restore balance in the marketplace by opening opportunities for smaller competitors.
Next Steps
If approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the judgment would impose significant changes on Google’s operations and serve as a precedent for addressing antitrust concerns in the tech industry. The goal is to create a more competitive landscape while providing greater transparency and choice for consumers and advertisers.
This development represents a key step in the broader effort to ensure fair practices in the digital economy. For Ohio and the other states involved, the focus remains on supporting measures that encourage competition and protect consumer interests.