Key Takeaways:

• The U.S. Justice Department has reaffirmed its demand for Google to divest its Chrome browser as part of ongoing antitrust action.
• This action follows a judicial ruling that established Google holds an illegal monopoly in online search.
• While divestiture of AI investments is no longer sought, stringent measures to ensure competition in search are being proposed.
• Arguments regarding the proposals are set to be heard in April.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has reiterated its demand for Google to divest its widely used Chrome browser as it builds its case against the tech giant for maintaining an illegal monopoly in online search. This re-emphasis comes as part of a broader antitrust investigation initially sparked during the administration of former President Trump, which has now seen continued support under President Biden's leadership.

In a court filing on Friday, the DOJ claims that Google's actions have created an "economic goliath," asserting that the company’s practices severely limit competition and harm American consumers and businesses. The DOJ stated that "no matter what occurs, Google always wins," indicating the depth of its concern over Google's market dominance. Judge Amit P. Mehta had previously found that Google's paid agreements with device manufacturers and web browsers had effectively cemented its status as the default search engine, capturing around 70% of U.S. search traffic Source.

The government initially sought to force Google to also sell off its AI investments, but that proposal has since been withdrawn. Instead, the DOJ is advocating for new requirements, including a notification process for Google's future AI investments, reflecting a nuanced position in a rapidly evolving technological landscape Los Angeles Times.

The upcoming court proceedings, scheduled for April, will include arguments from both the DOJ and Google as they propose different paths forward. Google's spokesperson, Peter Schottenfels, criticized the DOJ's request, asserting that it would impede consumer choices and compromise the nation's security and economy Source.

This ongoing legal saga represents one of the most significant confrontations between the federal government and a technology powerhouse since the Microsoft antitrust case of 2000, and its outcome could reshape the competitive landscape of the tech industry considerably.