The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is poised to propose a set of sweeping remedies to curb Google's dominance in the online search market. The DOJ's recommendations come in the wake of a landmark court ruling that declared Google's control over search an illegal monopoly, putting the tech giant under intense scrutiny. The proposals could lead to significant changes in how Google operates, potentially reshaping the landscape of internet search and digital advertising.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled against Google earlier this year, will have the final say on what actions the company must take to restore competition. The remedies phase of the trial, expected to commence in 2025, will determine whether Google will face a breakup or other significant restrictions on its business operations. Legal experts believe the judge's decision could set a precedent in regulating Big Tech, similar to past cases against monopolies in other industries.

One of the most severe options on the table is the breakup of Google's core services, including its Chrome browser, Android operating system, and AdWords platform. Legal experts note that forcing divestitures of these units could drastically alter Google's business model and reduce its influence in directing users to its search engine.

Bill Baer, former head of the DOJ's antitrust division, suggested that a breakup might be necessary to ensure meaningful competition. "The judge, in order to make this remedy meaningful, is going to have to do something that allows competition to flourish," Baer stated. Such a move would strip Google of critical data that fuels its advertising algorithms and weaken its grip on the digital ad market.

Despite these possibilities, antitrust attorney Carl Hittinger expressed skepticism about a full breakup, suggesting it may not be the best solution for consumers. "You can't just yank the rug out from under the American public that's been using Google's service, now ingrained in our culture, without a substitute," he said. The challenge lies in finding a remedy that serves public interest without destabilizing the existing digital ecosystem.

Another focus of the DOJ's proposed remedies involves Google's agreements that make its search engine the default option on many devices. Google reportedly spends up to $26 billion annually to secure this status on products like Apple's iPhones and various Android devices. Antitrust experts believe that ending these exclusive contracts could open the door for more competition in the search engine market.

Colin Kass, an antitrust lawyer at Proskauer, expects the judge to target these agreements as a crucial aspect of the remedy. "This was a relatively narrow complaint and an even narrower ruling," Kass said, emphasizing that undoing these contracts could help level the playing field for competitors like Microsoft's Bing and DuckDuckGo. If these agreements are dissolved, consumers might finally have a genuine choice of search providers on their devices.

Beyond breaking up Google's services or ending exclusive contracts, the DOJ is also considering forcing Google to share its "click and query" data with rival search providers. This data, which helps refine Google's search algorithms, could be crucial for competitors to improve their own search technologies and attract advertisers.

A spokesperson for DuckDuckGo highlighted the potential impact of such a measure, stating that access to Google's search data would be a game-changer for privacy-oriented search engines. The representative noted that, unlike Google, DuckDuckGo does not track user search histories for targeted advertising, which puts it at a competitive disadvantage in the digital ad space.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is another factor that could influence the DOJ's strategy in its case against Google. Even as traditional search remains a battleground, new AI-powered search engines are emerging as potential disruptors. Analysts argue that Google's dominance in conventional search could give it an unfair advantage in the race to develop next-generation AI-driven search technologies.

Brent Thill, a senior analyst at Jefferies, believes that divesting entities like Chrome or Android might not be as detrimental to Google as some expect. "I don't think spinning off a browser or an Android operating system is going to have a dramatic impact on the company," Thill said, noting that AI innovations could present a bigger challenge to Google's market position.

The legal landscape for this antitrust battle is complex. Judge Mehta could delay imposing any remedies while Google appeals his decision to the Circuit Court of Appeals. If the ruling is overturned on appeal, the judge's ability to enforce any remedies would be nullified. However, if Google's appeal fails, Mehta has the discretion to adjust his orders to ensure that competitive conditions are fully restored.

Legal experts have drawn comparisons to past antitrust cases, like the one against Xerox in the 1970s, where the company was forced to open its technology to competitors. Hittinger sees parallels in how the court might approach Google's case by allowing third-party access to essential search data and software.

Industry reactions to the DOJ's proposals have been mixed. Smaller search providers like Yelp and DuckDuckGo have strongly advocated for structural changes, such as the divestiture of Chrome and the opening of Google's data to competitors. "Google is not going to have the incentive to comply unless they have the Damocles' sword of divestiture hanging above them," said Adam Epstein, president and co-CEO of adMarketplace.

Tech giants like Apple and Microsoft have stayed relatively quiet on the issue, despite their vested interests in the outcome. Apple, which benefits significantly from its partnership with Google, could face revenue losses if Google's default search deals are terminated. Meanwhile, Microsoft's Bing could gain a larger foothold in the market.