Will the "splitting frenzy" not seen in over 40 years be repeated in the United States? Google is once again in court with the government over "antitrust."

According to the Zhitong Finance APP, since the U.S. government split the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) in 1982, it has not split any domestic companies. Now, the U.S. government is trying to persuade a judge to make the American tech giant Alphabet Inc.'s search engine leader Google (GOOGL.US) the next domestic company to be split.

On Monday local time, Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet, will face off against the U.S. Department of Justice and dozens of state attorneys general in a Washington courtroom, debating what antitrust remedies the judge will order to prevent the company from continuing to monopolize the online search engine and online advertising markets.

The remedies proposed by the U.S. government's antitrust regulatory agencies include: requiring Google to sell its Chrome browser business, licensing internal search engine data to competitors, and stopping the payment of large fees to gain exclusive status on other online services and devices.

Google has firmly stated that the government's proposals would undermine a range of products that people use every day, damage the technological leadership of the U.S., and harm American consumers. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, stated in a blog post on Sunday local time that the Department of Justice's proposal would "raise all benchmark prices and significantly slow down the pace of innovation."

It is understood that Google's representatives have opposed being forced to sell the Chrome browser business and have proposed an alternative antitrust remedy: allowing users to automatically select their preferred default browser while still allowing the company to share related revenue with competitors.

The final judgment rests with U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta. In August last year, Mehta ruled that Google held an illegal monopoly in the internet search field. Starting this Monday, he will hold a three-week hearing on how to remedy the damage caused by Google's market dominance and monopoly, listening to testimonies from both sides during the trial. He indicated that his ruling is most likely to be made in August this year.

In a monopoly ruling report, Mehta pointed out that Google illegally dominated the online search and online advertising markets by paying over $26 billion to tech companies like Apple (AAPL.US) and other stakeholders to make its search engine the default browser option on smartphones and web browsers, effectively blocking the path to success for any other competitors.

This latest antitrust trial is the most recent example of the escalating antitrust pressure Google has faced in recent years. Just a few days ago, another federal judge ruled that Google illegally monopolized a broad online advertising technology market, a decision that will trigger another so-called "antitrust remedy hearing" in the coming months.

Google's antitrust remedy proceedings are the first time U.S. courts have considered whether to split a large tech company since the American tech giant Microsoft (MSFT.US) successfully "shed its skin" from an antitrust case 25 years ago. If Mehta ultimately forces Google to sell its Chrome browser business, it will mark the first split since the breakup of the "Bell System" (Ma Bell) in 1982 T, this marks the first time that a U.S. Department of Justice antitrust case has led to the complete breakup of a domestic company.

Mehta wrote in a 286-page preliminary ruling last year: "Google's distribution agreements have blocked the vast majority of the general search service market, harming competitors' competitive opportunities." He pointed out that Google has been able to significantly increase online advertising prices without any impact by monopolizing distribution on smartphones, mobile devices, or PC browsers.

The U.S. government seems eager for Google to sell its Chrome browser business, license search data to competitors, and stop paying for exclusive status on other services and consumer devices.

"Rare Consensus"

The ruling is the result of years of antitrust investigations and related lawsuits by U.S. government agencies, and it reflects a "rare consensus" between the Trump and Biden administrations in curbing the power of tech giants, or what can be described as an "extraordinary alignment."

The antitrust case against Google dates back to the first term of the Trump administration, during which the U.S. Department of Justice launched a large-scale investigation into nearly every part of the company’s business. In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice officially filed the Google search engine case; this case was subsequently pursued by the Biden administration, achieving significant victories in court. The case involving Google’s advertising technology business also stems from this investigation and comprehensive allegations, initiated by antitrust enforcers during the Biden administration.

During Trump's first term, the U.S. Department of Justice and the so-called Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also conducted detailed antitrust investigations into Apple, Amazon.com Inc., and Meta Platforms Inc., which was still known as Facebook at the time, believing that the U.S. government had taken a "laissez-faire" approach toward the world's largest tech companies. The Biden administration continued these cases and filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in addition to the Google advertising technology case; meanwhile, the FTC's recent request to break up Meta's related antitrust case is also being heard in Washington.

In the upcoming hearing, Judge Mehta will hear testimony from several executives, including Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Apple Senior Vice President Eddy Cue. Employees from companies such as Microsoft, OpenAI, Verizon Communications Inc., Mozilla Corp., as well as numerous economists and other expert witnesses are also expected to testify.

Potential Major Opposition

Undoubtedly, the U.S. Department of Justice is likely to face significant opposition, as many witnesses do not support its antitrust remedy proposals. For example, if the DOJ's plan is adopted, Apple would also follow with a loss of billions in revenue; other browser product developers are also reluctant to lose Google's payment pathways and related access. Furthermore, not all involved companies agree on breaking up Google's Chrome browser business Regardless of Mehta's ruling, it will have a profound impact on the U.S. government's strong integrated ability to regulate the technology industry and more broadly control corporate business concentration. However, Google is expected to continue appealing and may take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, so any corrective or antitrust remedy measures may take years to take effect rather than being implemented immediately this year.

Since Washington's unsuccessful attempt to break up Microsoft 20 years ago, this is the most significant potential move to control illegal monopoly behavior by a large U.S. technology company, indicating that Google may face a long legal battle similar to that of Microsoft at the time, with the possibility of a breakup remaining. Google will need to go through a lengthy legal process to avoid a breakup