The U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 2020 lawsuit against Google over search distribution is a backward-looking case in a rapidly evolving tech landscape. As new services like ChatGPT and international competitors such as DeepSeek gain traction, the DOJ’s broad remedy proposals appear both unnecessary and detrimental. We have consistently disagreed with the court’s decision and plan to appeal. However, before proceeding with the appeal, the court must first determine the appropriate remedies to address the liability decision. At trial, we will demonstrate how the DOJ’s unprecedented proposals exceed the court’s decision and could harm American consumers, the economy, and the nation’s technological leadership. First, the DOJ’s proposal would make it more difficult for users to access the services they prefer. People choose Google because they find it useful, not because they are forced to. The DOJ’s plan would compel browsers and phones to default to other search engines, such as Microsoft’s Bing, thereby reducing user choice and convenience. Forcing Google to step aside would mean that many users would have to take extra steps to switch back to their preferred search engine. Second, the proposal to prevent Google from competing for the right to distribute search would likely raise prices and slow innovation. Device manufacturers and web browsers, such as Mozilla’s Firefox, depend on revenue from search distribution deals. Removing this revenue stream would increase the cost of mobile devices and potentially degrade the user experience of the browsers people rely on daily. This would stifle competition and deter investment in new technologies. Third, the DOJ’s suggestion to force Google to share users’ most sensitive and private search queries with unknown companies poses significant risks to privacy and security. Your private information would be exposed without your consent to companies that may not have the same level of security and protection as Google. This could lead to data breaches and exploitation by malicious actors, undermining the trust users place in their digital tools. Fourth, the DOJ’s proposal would impede Google’s ability to develop and advance artificial intelligence (AI). The idea of having a government-appointed committee regulate the design and development of our products could hinder innovation at a crucial time. The United States is in a fierce global competition with China for technological supremacy, and American companies, particularly Google, are at the forefront of scientific and technological breakthroughs. Introducing government oversight could slow down progress and undermine our competitive edge. Finally, the DOJ’s plan to split off Google’s Chrome browser and Android operating system, which were developed at significant expense and are provided free of charge, could have severe consequences. Breaking these platforms from our core infrastructure would not only introduce cybersecurity risks but also increase the cost of devices. Google is a leader in online security, and such a move would compromise the protection we provide, potentially exposing users to significant threats. There is a more balanced and cautious approach to this issue. Our proposed remedies focus on ensuring the contestability of search distribution contracts without causing harm. This approach would address the court’s concerns while protecting consumers, the economy, and national security. You can learn more about our proposal in this detailed post. The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of caution in antitrust cases. The DOJ’s sweeping proposals, however, ignore this principle and could have far-reaching negative impacts. We are committed to presenting a compelling case in court to safeguard the interests of our users and the broader American tech ecosystem.