By Siddharth Tai

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is once again facing a corporate giant with the potential to reshape the competitive landscape of technology: this time it’s Google. For several years, the DOJ and various state attorneys general have argued that Google exerts undue control over online search, digital advertising and the broader Internet ecosystem. Now, as an antitrust ruling against the tech giant approaches, one potential solution the government is considering is not only breaking up parts of Google’s operations, but also forcing it to share its data with third-party competitors. Although designed to reinvigorate competition, this remedy may have significant unintended consequences on user privacy.

To understand how the DOJ might weaken Google’s market dominance, it helps to look back at other landmark antitrust cases and see where Google stands — and how the delicate balance between market competition and life Consumer privacy could be disrupted in ways few anticipate. The DOJ’s lawsuit against Google is reminiscent of some of America’s most famous antitrust cases. Two cases are eloquent examples: the breakup of AT&T in 1984 and the confrontation with IBM in the 1970s.

AT&T, a government-sanctioned monopoly for much of the 20th century, provided almost all telephone service in the United States. But its control of the telecommunications market left little room for competition, innovation or customer choice. After years of legal battles, the DOJ finally forced AT&T to divest its local phone service providers into seven “Baby Bells.” This breakup dramatically changed the industry, ushering in an era of competition that spurred innovation in telecommunications and, later, the Internet. Similarly, in the 1970s, IBM was accused of monopolizing the computer market. Although the DOJ never entirely succeeded in breaking up IBM (although it did force it to create a technology services subsidiary with its own management), the long-running antitrust lawsuit contributed to the rise of competitors like Microsoft and Intel, reshaping the computer industry.

Now it’s Google’s turn. But there’s one key difference: While previous splits were primarily about sharing physical assets (like phone lines or computer data centers), Google’s power lies in its vast reserves of data. Google’s dominance isn’t just about market share; it’s a function of the immense data it collects from billions of users. Every search query, YouTube view, Gmail message, and Google Maps direction is part of a massive pool of data that powers its ad targeting algorithms and product improvements. Competitors like Bing or DuckDuckGo simply can’t offer the same level of customization or precision because they don’t have access to this treasure trove of information.
This creates a vicious cycle: more users choose Google services, thereby generating more data, improving the company’s products and attracting even more users. The DOJ is well aware that competitors will continue to struggle to gain a meaningful foothold in search or digital advertising unless Google’s data advantage is reduced.

This is where the idea of ​​forced data sharing comes in. The DOJ hopes to level the playing field by requiring Google to make its data available to its competitors. Small search engines, digital advertisers and other web-based businesses could theoretically use Google’s data to create better products, attracting users with little reason to leave Google’s ecosystem.
On paper, forced data sharing may seem like a plausible solution to Google’s market domination. However, Google data is sensitive. It includes detailed information about individual users’ search habits, browsing histories, locations, and even voice recordings through services like Google Assistant. Although Google itself is far from perfect when it comes to protecting this data – having faced numerous fines and lawsuits over privacy violations – it still has a comprehensive infrastructure for managing user data. users safely.

But what happens when this data is transmitted to third party companies? Even with strict guidelines or oversight, the risks of data breaches, misuse, or even malicious exploitation multiply as more entities gain access to sensitive information. Smaller competitors may not have the same robust security protocols as Google. And once that data is in the hands of other parties, its risk of mismanagement increases exponentially.

If the DOJ requires Google to share its data, it could inadvertently expose the private information of millions of users to new threats. The EU General Data Protection Regulation contains provisions that could conflict with forced data sharing, given the emphasis on limiting data collection and enforcing the principle of data minimization. Mass sharing of user data with third parties could violate these principles, creating a legal conflict between the regulatory frameworks of different jurisdictions.

Plus, users trust Google (even reluctantly) because they know what to expect. The introduction of more players, each with their own privacy policies and security practices, complicates the already murky data privacy landscape. It’s easy to imagine a future in which trying to reduce Google’s power would create an even bigger privacy problem.

Given these concerns, splitting up Google’s different business units may seem like a simpler solution than forced data sharing. Some have proposed that Google’s advertising business be separated from its search engine or that YouTube be spun off into a separate entity. These structural changes would limit Google’s ability to leverage its data across different products, thereby reducing its competitive advantage without requiring data sharing.

However, even a breakup of this magnitude would face many obstacles. Google has spent years tightly integrating its services, making it difficult to separate its arms without harming the user experience or underlying technology infrastructure. As with any major corporate dissolution, significant legal challenges and logistical nightmares would exist.
As the Justice Department moves forward, it faces a crucial challenge: ensuring that its actions actually benefit consumers and do not simply replace a monopoly with a new set of problems. It’s a tall order, but one that will define the next era of technology.

The author is a technology consultant and venture capitalist.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of FinancialExpress.com. Reproduction of this content without authorization is prohibited.