Considerations for Effective Search Competition Remedies

The U.S. government’s antitrust case against Google Search has the potential to unlock a vital gateway to the online information ecosystem that hundreds of millions of Americans rely on every day. To achieve this, a robust set of remedies is essential—not only to curb Google’s monopolistic practices, but to ignite true competition.

In October 2024, KGI brought together leading antitrust and tech policy experts for a workshop that explored how a wide range of search remedies could be structured most effectively. Considerations for Effective Search Competition Remedies presents our key findings from the workshop together with analysis of the existing research, evidence, and remedy proposals focused on search competition.

The report draws on lessons learned from antitrust enforcement against Google in other jurisdictions to explore how to craft remedies that will be most effective in achieving the remedial goals articulated by US courts: (1) unfetter the markets for general search and search text ads from Google’s exclusionary conduct, (2) remove barriers to competition, (3) deny Google the fruits of its statutory violations, and (4) prevent Google from monopolizing these markets and related markets in the future. The report articulates several foundational principles for crafting effective remedies in US v. Google:

• A comprehensive, multi-faceted remedy package is essential. A successful package of remedies must address interlocking, mutually reinforcing market dynamics by including remedies aimed at distribution, quality improvement through data access, choice, and public education.
• Search access points must include all access points that rely on search assets. The category of “all search access points” should be understood to include access points that rely on Google Search assets even if the product to which they provide access is not branded as a search product (e.g., AI products that rely on search data or web indexing).
• If structural remedies for Android and Chrome are adopted, they must be accompanied by behavioral remedies. Contractual prohibitions and choice screens are insufficient to prevent Google from favoring its own search engine. Structural and behavioral remedies must go together to prevent Google from favoring its own search engine.
• Data access remedies must be precise and tailored to market conditions to be effective. Data provisions should enable fair access to the data that improves search quality. Privacy implications and effects on adjacent markets require careful consideration.
• Effectiveness should be judged on performance benchmarks with robust oversight. If competition doesn’t improve, adjustments should come quickly. A fully resourced monitor and technical committee are essential to effective oversight.

With these principles in mind, the court in US v. Google can help create the conditions for healthy competition in a market that has suffered too long without it. To learn more, read the report.