In the wake of last year’s verdict that Google operated an illegal monopoly on general internet search, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed a suite of drastic remedies. This includes a proposal to force the sale of its web browser, Google Chrome. If the DOJ succeeds, the budding technology company, OpenAI, is among a long list of companies with interest to buy it. That revelation should make courts question the merits of forcing the sale of Chrome.
While the trial to determine remedies is ongoing, it would be a mistake for the government to force these potentially seismic market shifts as opposed to allowing the market to change based on consumer preference. AI-powered search has enormous potential, but the companies deploying it should have to compete with incumbents the good old-fashioned way: by providing a superior product without court favoritism. An approach centered on innovation and quality—not court rule—would benefit consumers the most.
Look no further than how Google outcompeted its peers before establishing its long history of pro-consumer web search innovation. Google’s search engine was created in a way that was revolutionary at the time, using cross references found in web pages to determine how relevant a page was to the search query. This effectively unmoored internet searches from fixed categories of information, differentiating the web search service from its chief competitor, Yahoo. By delivering results based on cross-references within web pages rather than by title and categorization of information, Google could deliver relevant results to users much more effectively than their contemporaries. In short, Google innovated its way to the top by providing value to consumers who prefer its web browser to the other market competitors.
Google’s search engine and other products remain extremely popular to this day. Google Chrome, for example, holds 66 percent of the browser market share worldwide. Even when Google isn’t the default option, many people actively switch to Chrome anyway. For example, 30 percent of iPhone users have installed Chrome to replace the Safari default. Google Chrome also holds 64 percent of the market for PC users, even though the devices typically preinstall Microsoft Edge. Consumers could lose directly if the court forced the sale of Chrome—but they would also lose indirectly through forgone market competition.
New market entrants pose a threat to Chrome, even without proposed remedies. Following the rise of AI chatbots, 20 percent of users changed their primary search platform in the past year. AI search engines are being used alongside traditional search engines to answer more complex questions and to make comparisons between different products. In the grand scheme of things, AI chatbots are still a relatively small—but growing—market compared to traditional search engines, but market competition is evolving quickly.
Some AI companies are looking to take the next step and integrate into web browsers to compete directly with traditional browsers. OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and other technology companies all launched AI-powered search engines of their own. ChatGPT’s search program is a strong contender for the budding AI search engine market with an estimated 600 million monthly users, but it is not the only one in the race. Others include Google’s Gemini with 350 million monthly users, Microsoft Copilot with 28 million active users, and smaller AI-powered search engines competing as well. A court order to sell Chrome that leads to OpenAI purchasing it could upend this emerging competition.
If OpenAI were to purchase Chrome, it plans on making it an “AI first experience” by integrating its technology into an already massively popular web browser with billions of existing users—drastically increasing its use and market share. After all, Chrome is already widely popular. Ironically, this could give OpenAI, already the frontrunner of AI-powered search engines, a much stronger lead in the market. It may even reduce competition from OpenAI who may no longer be interested in creating their own Chromium-based competitor to Google Chrome. Creating the pathway for such an outcome is in direct contrast to other DOJ efforts that take a structuralist approach to enforcement by targeting large firms.
OpenAI becoming the next dominant search company might happen naturally if the company creates a better product that attracts consumer interest. However, the outcome of the remedies the government is proposing could artificially bless them as the winner of the race for AI web browsing dominance before it had a chance to take off.
Determining whether OpenAI or another AI company one day out-competes and out-innovates Google is a guessing game—but the winners and losers of the ongoing AI search competition could be determined by courts if they meddle too aggressively in the remedies process. That outcome should be avoided. Consumers are best served when they can freely express their preferences in a dynamic and free marketplace.
As courts decide how to remedy court-determined monopolization in the internet search engine market, they should consider that Google’s enduring popularity means that the government’s proposed remedy could significantly harm consumer welfare. It could also upend that historically pro-consumer competitive process that is already underway in AI-powered search. Such consequential changes in the search markets should be decided by consumers and markets—not by courts.
Trey Price is a policy analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, follow us on X @ConsumerPal.