According to Zhitoa Finance APP, public court documents show that the technology giant $Alphabet-A (GOOGL.US)$ claims that the Department of Justice's plan to compel it to sell the Chrome web browser is "too extreme," and that the company has proposed its own remedy to maintain healthy competition in the Internet search market.

In outlining the key points of its remedy, Alphabet-A stated that browser companies like Apple and Mozilla should continue to freely trade with the search engines they deem most beneficial to users. This would allow browsers to continue providing search services to their users and to earn revenue from that partnership.

They stated that their remedy would provide device manufacturers with additional flexibility to preload multiple search engines and do so independently of either preloaded searches or preloading any Google applications in Chrome.

The company's proposal will also include "strong mechanisms" to comply with the court's order without granting the government broad powers over aspects like the design of online experiences.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president of external affairs at Google, said in a blog post on Monday: "We strongly oppose the Department of Justice's ruling on the search distribution lawsuit and will appeal. If the Department of Justice believes there are anti-competitive behaviors in Google's investment in Chrome, our development of AI, how we crawl the web, or our development of algorithms, it could have initiated these lawsuits. But it did not."

In early August, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, "maintaining its monopoly in the U.S. in two product markets (general search services and general text advertising) through exclusive distribution agreements."

Major Banks' Perspectives

Barclays analysts stated that Alphabet-A's remedy addressed about half of the exclusive breach contract issues emphasized by the court's ruling on August 5.

The research firm indicated that if the court accepts these remedies, Alphabet-A's revenue will remain largely unchanged, and its operating income may increase. Alphabet-A made a strong argument that many of the DOJ's remedies are too harsh, emphasizing the importance of caution when drafting any antitrust remedies and urging the court to be careful in enhancing Consumer welfare, without being too severe.

Bank of America analysts stated on Monday: "The judge is expected to make a decision on the remedies in August, and we believe this could affect Wall Street's view of Alphabet-A's long-term Search Engine revenue opportunities. However, we believe that potential changes in the DOJ leadership with the new administration or appellate decisions could influence the direction of the case and/or lead to a settlement."

JPMorgan analysts believe that, as expected, Alphabet-A's remedies are more moderate than the DOJ's. "Ultimately, we believe the judge's final decision next summer will strike a more balanced approach between the DOJ and Alphabet-A's remedies and may consider the potential impact on users more."

Editor/ping