Google may be forced to sell its Chrome browser due to monopoly complaints — potential $20 billion sale if approved by a judge

Google building
(Image credit: Shutterstock)

The Department of Justice (DoJ) may force Google to give up its Chrome browser, and the tech giant is not taking the news in stride. According to Bloomberg, on Wednesday, the DoJ may ask Judge Amit Mehta, who presides over the United States vs. Google antitrust case, to mandate that Google sell Chrome. Judge Mehta ruled in favor of the US government and the 17 states that joined the lawsuit in August, allowing the DoJ to consider what Google should do to lose its illegal monopoly status.

Being forced to sell or otherwise give up Chrome would be a significant blow to Google since the data Google collects from Chrome offers the tech giant crucial insight into its users, which makes its advertising business even more effective and profitable. Chrome is also a gateway into other Google products, such as Google Search, Gmail, Google Drive, and Gemini, the company’s AI service.

According to StatCounter, two-thirds of the world’s internet users browse the web via Chrome, which is by far the most used browser in the world, next to Safari, which is just 18%. The sale could have major ramifications for the internet's landscape.

The DoJ reportedly will make other demands relating to AI, the Android operating system, and data licensing, all major components of Google’s business. The government was apparently also intent on forcing a sale of Android but now wants Google to separate the smartphone OS from the Google Play store, the company’s search engine, and other products. Perhaps not coincidentally, Android’s deep integration with the Google Play store is a vital issue in Epic’s lawsuit against Google, first filed in 2020.

Unsurprisingly, Google isn’t a fan of this potential outcome. “The DOJ continues to push a radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case,” VP of Regulatory Affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a statement to Tom’s Hardware. “The government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed.”

However, it’s unclear if the DoJ can even get precisely what it wants, particularly concerning Chrome. According to StatCounter, four of the top five browsers are owned by a larger company: Chrome by Google, Safari by Apple, Edge by Microsoft, and Samsung Internet by, of course, Samsung. Mozilla Firefox is the biggest browser in the world, which a giant tech corporation does not own, representing just 2.65% of the market. The internet browser business just isn’t very competitive.

Mozilla can only operate as it does thanks to Google, which pays the browser organization about half a billion dollars a year. Firefox’s default search engine is Google’s. Mozilla’s latest financial statement from 2022 shows that it made $510 million from royalties generated from “search engines of its customers as a default status or an optional status.” Most of these royalties likely come from Google since its search engine is the default.

Without these royalties, Mozilla would have only made $80 million in 2022, nowhere near enough to cover its expenses of $425 million before taxes. That doesn’t bode too well for Chrome, which might not be able to survive on its own without significant financial support from a tech giant like Google.

If Chrome is put up for sale, the only buyers might be companies on the same scale as Google, such as Amazon. That may break up Google’s monopoly, but it’s hard to imagine transferring Chrome from one tech giant to another is what the DoJ wants.

Matthew Connatser

Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.

  • EzzyB
    I always thought that using a browser made by Google was right up there with using anti-virus software made by Russians is just not a very smart thing to do.
    Reply
  • derekullo
    I've stuck with Firefox ever since Noscript came out and never looked back!
    Reply
  • tommo1982
    I agree with Google on one thing. Chrome is essential to its ecosystem, the same Safari is for Apple. Separating it from Google is silly, in my opinion. DOJ should ask Google to fix its search engine and YouTube algorithms. Either returns irrelevant results or not related to the query. It'd hurt Google as much as forcing it to sell Chrom, if not more.
    Reply
  • bigdragon
    I was fine with Chrome until Google started going on its anti-adblocker crusade. That's when it became clear that Google intended to abuse its portfolio to extract more revenue. The DOJ is right to step in here. I'd like to see them be more active in the tech space given how pervasive tracking and advertising have become.
    Reply
  • Giroro
    In the very least, if Google is allowed to keep forcing people to download ads to their home computers without moderation (and bandwidth isn't free), then it's only fair that Google be forced to let people upload anything they want to google's computers, without moderation, at Google's expense.
    I would go one further and say Google should be forced to allow other users of their services to even have a realistic chance of finding and accessing that unmoderated content, uploaded by random nobodies. No more snowballing users onto whichever company is biggest, or who's buying the most ads.

    Similarly take action on all other data. If Google want's unlimited access to all private user data/files/location/voice/video on and off the internet, then all of Google's private proprietary data about the company, it's algorithms, and it's executives should be made publicly available. Two Way Street. See how they like it.
    Would that ruin Google? Yes, probably. That's kinda the whole point of breaking up a monopoly.

    Or, better yet, any given government could declare Google's extreme hoard of aggregated data of its citizens a risk to their national security, and severely limit who is allowed to access that data, and how it can be used - even within Google's own company/services. That could be fun.
    Reply
  • chaz_music
    I believe a lot of people forget that Microsoft Edge is also based on Chrome. They have managed to garner a huge part of the browser market with the exception of a few smaller payers: Safari, Firefox, Opera, and others.

    Google has been a good company for many years and it managed to eat Yahoo's lunch. Once that was over, they started acting like bad stewards and putting irrelevant search results based upon what business paid them to show, not relevancy. That is how monopolies tend to act. Once the competition is gone, force-feed the consumer things they don't want or charge them more for no improvement in quality. I think breaking off Chrome and Android would temporarily fix these ecosystems.

    But that may be short term just like the Bell Telephone/ATT breakup: several years later two of the satellite re-merged all of the cellphone players back into Verizon and ATT. Mergers very rarely help the consumer but are famous for improving corporate profits. So corporate breakups often result in the entities merging again if it will provide strong stock market returns.
    Reply
  • purple_dragon
    chaz_music said:
    I believe a lot of people forget that Microsoft Edge is also based on Chrome. They have managed to garner a huge part of the browser market with the exception of a few smaller payers: Safari, Firefox, Opera, and others.

    Google has been a good company for many years and it managed to eat Yahoo's lunch. Once that was over, they started acting like bad stewards and putting irrelevant search results based upon what business paid them to show, not relevancy. That is how monopolies tend to act. Once the competition is gone, force-feed the consumer things they don't want or charge them more for no improvement in quality. I think breaking off Chrome and Android would temporarily fix these ecosystems.

    But that may be short term just like the Bell Telephone/ATT breakup: several years later two of the satellite re-merged all of the cellphone players back into Verizon and ATT. Mergers very rarely help the consumer but are famous for improving corporate profits. So corporate breakups often result in the entities merging again if it will provide strong stock market returns.
    Opera is also based on chromium. In reality, selling off google's search engine would do more to rein them in. While at the same time do less damage to their business. They haven't been a search engine for years, they are an ad business.
    Reply
  • vanadiel007
    I don't understand how a government agency could force a publicly traded Company to sell of part of it's business. If I were Google, I would simply close the Chrome project and revoke all licensing.
    This would in turn mean other browsers like Microsoft Edge and various others who are based on Chromium, would have to be abandoned.

    It would cause total chaos on the browser market and Google would reap the benefits of it as they are large enough to come up with a completely new browser to take even more market share.

    It's clear to me the DOJ does not understand how business works. What's next, force Tesla to sell SpaceX because it has obtained an "illegal monopoly" on space flight?
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    derekullo said:
    I've stuck with Firefox ever since Noscript came out and never looked back!
    I've never left FireFox, I was always a FireFox user since the old days.


    Giroro said:
    Or, better yet, any given government could declare Google's extreme hoard of aggregated data of its citizens a risk to their national security, and severely limit who is allowed to access that data, and how it can be used - even within Google's own company/services. That could be fun.
    Just make a new Rule/Regulation that declares ALL customer data held by these companies & data brokers to be "100% Illegal for Companies" to (Trade/Sell/Give Away/Share/Profit off of) w/o EXPLICIT consent from each individual person in writing on a contract from said person in a "Face to Face" situation that explicitly tells them what they are losing and why they are losing it along with what they will get in return.
    No more "Online Consent" by hiding it the "Terms of Service" that nobody reads.

    This "Wild West" with hoarding "Customers Data" needs to 100% stop and be turned into ILLEGAL property if they try to profit off of it.

    We need all those carefully collected "Customers Data" to be DESTROYED and WIPED off the face of the Earth PERMANENTLY.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    vanadiel007 said:
    I don't understand how a government agency could force a publicly traded Company to sell of part of it's business. If I were Google, I would simply close the Chrome project and revoke all licensing.
    This would in turn mean other browsers like Microsoft Edge and various others who are based on Chromium, would have to be abandoned.

    It would cause total chaos on the browser market and Google would reap the benefits of it as they are large enough to come up with a completely new browser to take even more market share.

    It's clear to me the DOJ does not understand how business works. What's next, force Tesla to sell SpaceX because it has obtained an "illegal monopoly" on space flight?
    Are you genuinely unfamiliar with the concept of antitrust law, or just disagree with its application here?

    Also, Edge and similar browsers are based off the open source Chromium project (which also forms the basis of Chrome). Google could pull the plug on Chrome tomorrow and the chromium-based browsers would likely be fine. Maybe Microsoft (and other purveyors of Chromium-based browsers) would have to hire some more devs, depending on how much they were relying on Google's ongoing contributions to Chromium vs that of other contributors and their own development.
    Reply