You are an expert in this field. So let's start with the likelihood that the DOJ launches an initiative or bid to break up Google. Thank you, Ed and Caroline. It's a pleasure to be here. The likelihood reflects the view inside the DOJ and more broadly held outside that fundamentally, the purpose of all of these actions needs to be to restore or to induce competition. It is pointless to have just an opinion or a judgment that tells us that Google is a monopolist. We have a number of those in Europe. We have failed, however, in Europe to follow that through and implement measures, remedies that were really capable of in increasing competition. So that the question is to what extent will the judge, as Lia was saying, just you feel the appetite and the opportunity to push the remedy of decision into a region that can create that competition? So, Christine, on the word appetite, you forget that there are people behind this story.

Our reporting is based on anonymous sources, but we're trying to infer the thinking of DOJ officials and attorneys. Why in this moment might they feel this is realistic as a course of action, if not a breakup? But the other potential actions that Lia reported on just a moment ago? The reason why it is now a salient moment for this kind of action is that there is a global sense that antitrust action against big tech and Google in particular has not delivered. And fundamentally, because the reaction has been too timid, we haven't adopted measures that are capable of inducing competition. So the Department of Justice follow what Jonathan Cantor said. He called his decision among Mt. Rushmore of antitrust historic, monumental. This is the time when we need to get serious about whether we use antitrust. There's a real industrial policy tool. To create competition in sectors where we have failed so far with half-witted measures and or we continue to do

something which is marginal, targeted, and very prescriptive, but at the same time does not deliver competition, which is the goal here. So the Department of Justice will feel that this is the salient moment at which to pursue this kind of aggressive agenda. Three and a half percent fall in market cap and share price. It's a big move on the day, but it certainly doesn't reflect the idea that it will be broken up. So is this in any way realistic and what do you anticipate will actually be the real souls here? The markets never really anticipate that antitrust is going to do very much. And this is the test: is the outcome of this case in which the judges delivered a very thoughtful, very well-thought-through opinion. Is it going to be serious or is it going to be, again, nibbling at the margin of the problem? So I think markets are just waiting to see, of course, the prospect of breaking

up. Google is very ambitious. On the other hand, if we don't do it now, then when? How are we going to create competition? A judge that just simply mandates that Google can no longer pay for exclusivity on Apple and Samsung should note that this kind of measure is going to be performative, is not going to deliver anything of substance. What would be substantive from your perspective, Christina? Is it about going into all the which ways that Google basically impacts the ecosystem and trying to unravel it? Because that's a Herculean task. It is Herculean. And in fact, I fear that we might end up with proposals that are a Rube Goldberg machine or various little measures of various attempts to deal with the control points that Google has. There is no question that the tentacles have gone deep in multiple control points, and unless we address those choke points, then we are not finding a solution.

Redlining a contract prohibiting exclusivity is not an answer. So breakup is difficult. But there are precedents in the U.S. Of course, you have dominated the most significant precedent there, and it unleashed competition and innovation. Of course, there will be massive challenges because Google will not take this lying down. There will be possibly years of challenge. But fundamentally, you have an ecosystem in which you have YouTube and Google Search, which are the two most important websites that people actually use. And then you have the same company owning the most important browser chrome. And if you allow all of that to be under the same umbrella, the incentive of this company are continually to use all of these pieces of the technology to favor itself, to drive revenue itself in ways that cement their monopoly, continuing continually, forever, forevermore, without allowing anyone to come in. Microsoft Office offered 20 billion over five years to write, to be able to be on on, on, on safari instead of of Google.

DOJ Mulls Google Breakup Push After Landmark Antitrust Win

Welcome to the Bloomberg Technology YouTube channel. Subscribe for original series and mini-docs on game-changing technologies, profiles on innovators, live conversations with experts, and breaking technology news & analysis from Bloomberg TV.