Google CEO Sundar Pichai testifies ‘extraordinary' DOJ remedies would cause ‘many unintended consequences'

Core Viewpoint - Google CEO Sundar Pichai argues that the Justice Department's proposed remedies to break up its search monopoly would lead to "many unintended consequences" and could undermine the company's ability to invest in research and development as it has for the past two decades [1][3]. Group 1: DOJ Proposals - The DOJ has requested remedies including the forced divestment of Google's Chrome web browser and mandates for data sharing on search results with competitors to enhance market competition [1][5]. - Pichai described the data-sharing requirement as "extraordinary," suggesting it would effectively result in a "de facto divestiture" of Google's online search business [2]. - The DOJ's proposals are considered by Pichai to be more extensive than the European Union's Digital Markets Act, which targets internet gatekeepers [4]. Group 2: Impact on Google - Pichai stated that if the DOJ's remedies are approved, it would make it "unviable" for Google to continue its current level of investment in research and development [3]. - The forced selloff of Chrome and Android could "break these platforms," potentially jeopardizing U.S. national security and allowing other countries, like China, to advance in AI and technology development [11]. - The DOJ has also suggested that if initial remedies do not effectively address Google's monopoly, further actions, including divesting ownership of the Android operating system, may be considered [7]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings - The DOJ's case against Google is in a historic remedies phase, which began on April 21 and is expected to last approximately three weeks [3]. - U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta previously ruled that Google holds a monopoly over online search and has the authority to determine how to address its anticompetitive practices [3]. - The DOJ's antitrust chief has emphasized the dangers posed by Google's monopoly to freedom of speech and digital markets, arguing that leaving the issue unaddressed is irresponsible [12].