Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai is warning that Google will likely stop investing in search if the DOJ gets its way with its proposed remedies.

The DOJ won its case against Google, with the court ruling the company has an illegal monopoly in the search market. As part of its proposed remedies, the DOJ wants to force Google to sell its Chrome browser, since the web browser serves as one of the main onboarding methods to use direct people to Google search, as well as restrict its ability to make deals for its search engine to be the default on various platforms and apps. The DOJ also wants Google to share its data with competing companies.

In his testimony during the remedies portion of the trial, Pichai told Judge Amit P. Mehta Wednesday that the DOJ’s proposed remedies would have a drastically detrimental impact on the the company’s ability to continue investing in search.

“The combination of all the remedies, I think, makes it unviable to invest in the R&D the way we have for the past three decades, to continue to innovate and build Google search,” he said, via The New York Times.

Pichai went on to call data sharing a “de facto divestiture” of the company’s search IP. If Google is forced to share data, it would “allow anyone to completely reverse engineer, end to end, every aspect of our technology stack.”

The Security Question

In addition to the issue of search innovation, Google is making the case that few other companies would be able to maintain the security Chrome offers, when compared to Google and its vast resources.

As the Times points out, The DOJ’s lawyer tried to question whether Pichai was qualified to speak about Chrome’s potential security if it were acquired by another company.

“Given my deep knowledge of the space and a general understanding of what other companies’ capabilities and commitments are around web security, I do think I’m able to speak on it,” Pichai replied.

Other companies have already come out in favor of Google in its trial, saying the company should be not be excluded from inking default search deals, nor should it be required to divest itself of Chrome.

Mozilla CEO Laura Chambers has been a vocal opponent of a some of the DOJ’s remedies.

Some of the remedies proposed in the case risk the future of our Firefox browser and Gecko browser engine—the last remaining non-Big Tech browser engine.

In the coming weeks, we hope to see a shift to focus on remedies that can improve search competition without harming the pro-competitive role that Firefox and other independent browsers play in the ecosystem.

We fully support the Department of Justice’s efforts to improve competition in various digital markets, but we’re concerned that the proposed remedies in the search case will do much more harm than good and unnecessarily seek to promote search competition at the expense of browser and browser engine competition. If the Department of Justice truly wants to fix competition, they can’t solve one problem by creating another.

Similarly, 37signals CTO David Heinemeier Hansson says Google should not be forced to sell off Chrome, echoing Google’s stance that the best search engine won.

First, Chrome won the browser war fair and square by building a better surfboard for the internet. This wasn’t some opportune acquisition. This was the result of grand investments, great technical prowess, and markets doing what they’re supposed to do: rewarding the best. Besides, we have a million alternatives. Firefox still exists, so does Safari, so does the billion Chromium-based browsers like Brave and Edge. And we finally even have new engines on the way with the Ladybird browser.

Look, Google’s trillion-dollar business depends on a thriving web that can be searched by Google.com, that can be plastered in AdSense, and that now can feed the wisdom of AI. Thus, Google’s incredible work to further the web isn’t an act of charity, it’s of economic self-interest, and that’s why it works. Capitalism doesn’t run on benevolence, but incentives.

Conclusion

There’s not doubt that Google’s trial is a about as high-stakes as it gets, not only for the company, but also for the web and search in general.

Google is clearly the most widely used search engine in the world, and largely for good reason. While there’s also no doubt that the company has abused its position as the dominant search provider, there is also no denying that the company does a lot to help maintain the web as a viable platform and alternative to closed app stores and ecosystems.

As a result, any remedy needs to take the entire state of the web into account, realizing the delicate balance that must exist to maintain a healthy internet ecosystem. There is mounting evidence that the DOJ’s proposed remedies may do far more harm than good.