Google: DOJ’s ‘radical’ proposals risk hurting consumers, businesses, developers

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs at Google, said in a blog post on Wednesday: “The DOJ 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. 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. 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. Splitting off Chrome or Android would break them – and many other things. Changes to the online advertising market would make online ads less valuable for publishers and merchants, and less useful for consumers. Unreasonable restrictions on how Google promotes our search engine would create friction for consumers and harm businesses. 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.”