The Remedy in the Google Search Case Must Protect Innovation and Consumer Interests

In the coming months, a federal judge will begin to weigh potential remedies following his ruling in the Google search case. Throughout this process, the court will consider a wide range of potential corrective measures that could dramatically shift the search engine marketplace that millions of American consumers currently rely on. Ultimately, the goal of any remedy in this case should be to maintain competition in the search engine market, without inadvertently harming both consumers and the existing competitive landscape that drives American innovation.

Currently, Google and other businesses are major drivers of American innovation, with private companies contributing more than 75% of all U.S. research and development. These investments have made the United States into a global technological leader. However, a heavy-handed remedy in this case that punishes a company that - as even the court's merits decision acknowledged - earned its success by "making shrewd business decisions," risks setting a dangerous precedent for other private businesses and could chill innovation. Such an outcome would threaten to create a less competitive and less innovative marketplace at a time when the United States is competing with foreign rivals, including China, to maintain its technological advantage on the global stage.

Additionally, the remedy phase of the trial could have serious ramifications for American consumers. For example, forced changes prohibiting Google from participating in the contract bidding process for default search engine deals would risk raising prices and reducing choices for consumers. Given that these contracts are often a significant source of revenue for manufacturers and developers, this type of remedy could force these companies to pass costs onto consumers or shut down altogether, which would only further entrench dominant players in those markets. Other potential remedies, such as forcing Google to spin off products and services like Android or Chrome, would risk undermining key features consumers have come to rely on for security and privacy. Currently, these services are integrated with each other and fall under a single, convenient security umbrella. Without this integrated ecosystem, users could face greater risks from malware, data breaches, and other cyber threats, leaving millions of users more vulnerable.

Ultimately, the imposition of heavy-handed remedies risk harming American consumers and may ironically make the search engine landscape and other internet-based industries less competitive. As this case moves toward its conclusion, the court should prioritize competition without undermining American innovation or the products that millions of Americans enjoy and prefer to use.