There’s an interesting development brewing with Google. In its antitrust lawsuit against the world’s most powerful search engine, the Department of Justice—among other things—is asking that Google be required to sell off the Chrome browser, the world’s most popular browser (with a 61% market share). Google essentially uses the browser—offered for free—to collect data it leverages to sell ads, maintaining its dominance as the most powerful internet ad sales force in the world.
For anyone opposed to monopolies—of which Google clearly is one—this may sound reasonable. However, as Casey Newton over on Platformer astutely observes, the real question is what would happen next. The Chrome browser is worth $20 billion, and the only companies that could afford and benefit from spending that amount—OpenAI, Microsoft, perhaps Apple—might end up creating new monopolies. For instance, OpenAI bundling its products with Chrome could significantly disrupt Google Search. While competition is generally good, it feels like the DOJ could simply be trading one monopoly for another.
Unfortunately, the idea of selling Chrome to an independent entity—an ideal scenario—may not be practical. Chrome is a free product. How could a buyer generate revenue without leveraging data collection and ad sales? Charging users directly seems like an unappealing option, as it might push more users toward Safari, further cementing Apple’s dominance, or to Firefox, a browser that is 20 years old and increasingly irrelevant.
Of course, this all might be moot. Any ruling to break apart Google could take years, requiring a future administration to continue the fight. While Trump’s DOJ initiated this case and many in his administration oppose big tech monopolies, the presence of influential big tech oligarchs within the administration could favor deregulation that ultimately benefits Google.
Speaking of legal cases, The Onion’s purchase of Infowars is in jeopardy. A bidder named First United American Companies—linked to the grifter products sold by Alex Jones on Infowars—initially offered $3.5 million, higher than The Onion’s $1.75 million bid. However, The Onion ultimately won when the families of the Sandy Hook victims contributed a portion of their potential earnings from the Alex Jones defamation lawsuit to raise the bid to $7 million.
First United is now arguing that it should be allowed to counteroffer, claiming the families of the Sandy Hook victims colluded with The Onion to “rig” the bidding. How this will resolve remains unclear, but it’s worth considering whether losing might actually serve The Onion’s best interests. While buying Infowars was undoubtedly the funniest possible move, recouping an increasingly costly investment from a gimmick site designed to parody weird internet personalities seems like a dubious long-term strategy.