Did that take you by surprise then the
U.K. has already said, look, we're okay.
We're at ease with this Anthropic investment, but then the US takes a
second look. Absolutely.
And you're absolutely right that I think

a loser from these remedies would be
Anthropic. The startup.
The DOJ wants to unwind Google's investment in Anthropic.
They want to go beyond that. I think it's a testament and a symbol of
how sweeping these remedies are.

And I think one of the things that's
kind of interesting about this case is that, you know, it was brought by the
Trump, the first Trump administration. I don't think they cared that much about
the search default deals, but they

wanted to kind of punish Google.
And now I think what you see happening now that Biden's Justice Department has
won the case, they don't seem that interested in the core of the case,
which was really search default agreements and instead are treating it
as a kind of vehicle for pretty broad

sweeping changes to Google's business,
like unwinding things like their Anthropic investment, the main one that
Bloomberg had been reporting on and then was indeed substantiated by the DOJ was
the selling off of Chrome. And many, would you like you said, this
doesn't seem to be going into the

payments that were being made to Apple,
to Samsung and other Android device makers to make Google search the
default. But the fact that Chrome has about 60%
market share when it comes to the browser market and then a lot of people
access search through it, would it not

be a good idea to start peeling off some
of the ways in which it dominates its search?
Well, the key point is that if the Justice Department thought that Chrome
was a problem, it should have included Chrome in its original argument.
That's the strange part about including

it as a remedy.
The DOJ never brought any charges against Google over Chrome.
They never made any allegation that Google had improperly preferenced it.
Search engine in Chrome. But now they're invoking the remedy
phase. So I think it's coming out of left field
in the way the judge will reject what

Chrome is clearly very valuable for
Google as a way to encourage people to spend time on the Internet.
Good for Google's business. That's clearly true.
But the idea that, you know, it's valuable to other people, I just don't
see it doesn't have any revenue of its

own.
It's not valuable if it's decoupled from Google's search results.
Frankly, I just think it's very unlikely.
I think it's about as likely the Google will be forced to sell Chrome.
As you know, Elon Musk Dodge Commission

is actually going to make the government
more efficient. That's taking us into a completely
different avenue. Adam So another time.
But I'm interested more broadly in some of the other areas, I mean, ones that
took perhaps people aback was the idea

that they'll be forced to license, sell
off or at least hand over their data, unique data to other rivals, even as
large a rival as Microsoft. When it comes to the world of search,
how technically feasible is that and ultimately how pro competition is that
sort of an outcome?

Yeah, well, I think technical and
technical feasibility of what the Justice Department has said is there
should be a technical committee that really has full access to Google's
source code, and that's obviously very invasive.
You're absolutely right that things like

spinning off Chrome got a lot of
attention. But if you barely look into the details
of this filing, you're absolutely right. They're proposing that Google have to
make its secret source algorithms available to rivals, share its users'
data with rival search engines,

including, by the way, foreign search
engines like Baidu and Yandex. There actually is a provision in there
that would make Google pay for consumers to switch to competing search
engines, which is like Pepsi paying their customers to try Coke.
It would make them fund paid advertising

campaigns for rivals like Bing and
DuckDuckGo. And I think, you know, all of these
extreme remedies, I don't think I think they would not only deter Google from
continuing to invest in search innovations if they have to share
everything, but they're they're so

extreme and they're so beyond the
judge's findings, they're a bit like prescribing a limb amputation just
because the patient has a hangnail. You the arguments you make are very clear
and we therefore try and play devil's

advocate here.
Me is the consumer, would any of this be good for me as a consumer if indeed
Google is forced to open up where any parts of the ideas coming from the DOJ are
a remedy? Well, I think the vast majority of
people just want their search engines to

work.
Right. And they want their search engines to
answer questions for them. And, you know, one of the things I think
is interesting is that obviously the A.I.
layer that people, Google is building into a search engine is a direct
response to the success of things like

ChatGPT.
We saw a news report yesterday that OpenAI was going to probably build
its own browser, but these remedies would take direct aim at that.
They wouldn't allow Google, for example, to put in A.I.
generated results into its search

results.
And so I do think that would be a pretty direct violation of the consumer welfare
standard, which has really been kind of the lodestar for antitrust enforcement.
I can see that all of these remedies would be great for Microsoft and great
for DuckDuckGo.

But, you know, that's just not the way
we historically do antitrust enforcement in the U.S..
Many had felt that actually there had been a slight changing in viewpoint of
how you do antitrust in the U.S., particularly under Lina Khan and under
now the current DOJ.

What's notable, though, is this is going
to change. You've got a new administration coming
in in 2025, and it's likely that Jonathan Kanter, who's been leading the
charge on this particular case, hands

over the reins.
Do you think anything changes on the back of that?
As you mentioned, it was the Trump administration that first brought this
case. That's right.
And I think, frankly, the fact that Jonathan Kanter is on his way out is
probably the main reason why these

remedies are so sweeping.
He's not going to be around for the trial about the remedies next year.
A lot of the attorneys who've been prosecuting the case are, you know,
shopping their resumes around Washington.
Trump's going to have a whole turnover

in agencies like the DOJ.
So Kanter doesn't have to own what happens next.
And I think that's why he swung for the fences.
I do think it's an open question about what the Trump administration will do.
Trump named Pam Bondi, former attorney

general of Florida, as his next attorney
general. She will then decide who the head of the
antitrust division will be, and there might be slight changes.
I think that Trump likes having cases of big against big tech because frankly,
they provide him some kind of punishment

or leverage over big tech services.
But there might be changes in how they manage the case, might be different
approaches to how they approach things like remedies.

Chamber of Progress CEO: Google's Chrome Sale Unlikely

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.

Chamber of Progress CEO: Google's Chrome Sale Unlikely

Chamber of Progress CEO: Google's Chrome Sale Unlikely

Scripts