Trying to rein in Google or Meta smacks of socialism

The Justice Department of the United States and a coalition of states have ramped up their antitrust battle against Google, urging a federal court to compel the tech giant to divest Chrome, its immensely popular web browser. This drastic measure is part of a broader set of remedies aimed at dismantling what the DOJ has described as Google’s illegal monopoly in online search.  

Judge Amit P Mehta, who ruled in August that Google leveraged unfair practices to maintain its search dominance, asked the DOJ and the states to propose solutions. In their sweeping recommendations, the government also called for measures like barring the company owned by Alphabet from mandating its apps on Android phones and restricting paid agreements with Apple and others to make Google the default search engine.  

The stakes are enormous, not just for Google, but for the entire tech industry. If implemented, these remedies could reshape competition, influence other antitrust cases involving Apple, Amazon, and Meta, and redefine how governments regulate tech monopolies.  

Remedies proposed: bold or overreaching?  

The DOJ’s proposals are
1.    Forcing Google to sell Chrome or Android — or both — to break its integrated ecosystem
2.    Preventing it from bundling its apps with Android devices
3.    Prohibiting deals where the tech giant pays to be the default search engine on devices or browsers
4.    Requiring it to share search data with rival engines for 10 years to level the playing field
5.    Mandating transparency and consent for publishers whose content is used to train its AI models.  

The remedies echo the DOJ’s case against Microsoft in the 2000s, where regulators sought to split the company to address its dominance. However, many legal experts question whether such interventions can withstand appeals, given that the Microsoft breakup was eventually overturned.  

Google’s defence: Competition or monopoly?  

Google has argued that its dominance is not the result of illegal conduct but of superior products. Chrome, for instance, commands 67% of the global browser market, far outpacing competitors like Apple’s Safari and Microsoft’s Edge, both of which have failed to attract similar user bases. Android, which powers 71% of smartphones globally, offers manufacturers an open-source platform, with the company's apps included as an added convenience.  

Kent Walker, Google’s President of Global Affairs, criticized the DOJ’s recommendations as “extreme,” asserting that they overreach beyond Judge Mehta’s ruling.  “Breaking up products that people love doesn’t solve competition issues — it harms users,” Walker said.  

A question of ethics: When does market leadership cross the line?

The government’s intervention raises significant ethical and philosophical questions. If Google has become the market leader by creating better products, is it truly at fault for its dominance? Safari, Edge and Samsung’s browser remain available to users, yet they pale in popularity compared to Chrome. Similarly, Microsoft’s Bing often yields less accurate results than Google Search, leaving consumers to gravitate toward the superior service.  
From an ethical standpoint, is it wrong for a company to thrive through innovation, even if it leaves competitors far behind? Or does Google’s dominance stem not from superior products but from strategies like exclusive deals and mandatory app installations, which critics argue unfairly limit choice?  

Government intervention: Regulation or overreach?

The proposals also reignite the age-old debate about the role of government in regulating private enterprises. If governments dictate how a company operates, can the private sector still claim independence? While capitalism thrives on competition, such interventions blur the line between free markets and controlled economies, inching closer to socialism. 

‘Thou shalt not…’ smacks of socialist intervention in a communist regime when nothing but wise technology and smart business strategy is employed to turn a product into the market leader. How does the US, often a champion of free-market capitalism, reconcile interventions of this scale with its economic ideology?

Indian implications  

The outcome of this antitrust case will ripple across the tech industry, impacting not only Google but also regulatory approaches toward other giants like Amazon, Meta and Apple. As generative AI becomes the next frontier, governments must decide whether protecting competition justifies breaking up companies that dominate through innovation and strategy.  

Ultimately, the case challenges us to reflect on the ethical boundaries of business dominance and the government’s role in preserving fair markets. Is Google an innovator unfairly targeted for its success or a monopolist suppressing competition through underhanded tactics? And where should the line be drawn between regulation and overreach?

The same question can be asked about the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposing a fine of $25.4 million on the American technology company Meta on 18 November due to antitrust infringements related to WhatsApp's privacy policy update in 2021. The commission mandated that the messaging service cease sharing user data for advertising purposes with other applications owned by Meta for five years.

"Sharing of user data collected on WhatsApp with other Meta companies for purposes other than for providing WhatsApp service shall not be made a condition for users to access WhatsApp Service in India," the CCI stated on Monday. But what’s wrong if I own five companies and push the customers of one of my shops to another shop of mine? I am not holding a customer at gunpoint, am I?

This development raises the question of what is "private". It's not about whether Google or Meta is right or wrong. Nobody sane would defend a monopoly. But if a company plays fair and still becomes the leading player in the market, getting far ahead of the competition, how can the government punish it? How is this capitalism any different from socialism?