After the government pushed to break up Google, accusing it of business practices that violate antitrust laws, the Mountain View, Calif., tech giant on Friday proposed its own solution: restructuring its operating agreements instead. .

“Regulating a rapidly changing industry like search with invasive statutes such as the plaintiffs’ proposal would harm competition, innovation, and consumers,” Google wrote in court Friday. stated in the submission.

The request comes after a federal judge found in August that the company illegally maintained a monopoly in search. Google disagrees with the decision and said it plans to appeal.

Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is now deciding how to restore competition. Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice and several states proposed solutions to fix Google’s alleged illegal search monopoly, including forcing the company to sell Chrome.

The amendments proposed by Google are narrower in scope than those proposed by the Justice Department. The judge’s decision could change the future of the internet and impact Google’s advertising business.

In its court filing, Google proposed imposing limits on its contracts with mobile device manufacturers and wireless carriers. For example, Google proposed not entering into an agreement with Apple that would make Apple the default search engine unless partners were allowed to set a different default search each year in the U.S. and promote other search services.

“We don’t propose these changes lightly. Regulating how we choose the best search engine for our customers will come at a cost to our partners,” said LeeAnne, Google’s vice president of regulation.・Mr Mulholland said. blog post.

Mehta’s nearly 300-page landmark ruling examines how Google maintained its dominance by paying large companies like Apple and Samsung to be the default search engine on web browsers and mobile devices. partially focused. The judges found that these agreements hindered the growth of Google’s rivals and reduced the incentive for other companies to invest in search.

“The truth is, no new entrant can hope to compete with Google over defaults in Firefox or any other browser,” the judge said. “Google’s query and quality advantages and high revenue share payments are simply powerful incentives to maintain the status quo.”

According to the ruling, Google’s default placement on Mozilla’s Firefox accounted for 80% of Mozilla’s operating revenue. But Google also pays Apple more than all its other partners combined. In 2022, Google could pay an estimated $20 billion to Apple to become the default search engine in the Safari browser.

Mozilla this week expressed concern that some of the Justice Department’s proposed solutions could harm web browsers. One potential amendment would prevent Google from entering into revenue-sharing agreements related to the delivery of its search services.

“These remedies risk unintentionally strengthening the position of a few powerful players by jeopardizing the revenue streams of important browser competitors,” Mozilla wrote in the article. blog post. Mozilla said Google is the default search engine for Firefox in the US because it “gives our users the best search experience.”

Beyond partnering with big tech companies, there are other ways Google maintains control over how people access its search engine. Google also runs the popular web browser Chrome and mobile operating system Android.

Last month, the Justice Department and several states asked a judge to force Google to sell Chrome. The agency will also require the tech company to display a “choice screen” in all Google browsers to let people know there are other options available if they have not selected a default search engine. also proposed.

Other ideas floated by the government include allowing publishers to opt out of Google using their content to train its artificial intelligence tools and giving advertisers more control over the ads they show in search results. This includes things like being able to control things.

Google pushed back against the government’s proposed solution, calling the approach an “unprecedented government overreach.”

Mehta plans to decide on a solution by August 2025.