Since it has been established now that Google dominates the market of search engines, digital advertising and the wider internet eco-system, one of the potential remedies the government could consider is to break up Google and to force it to share data with third-party competitors. Both these measures would weaken the market dominance of Google. Let us consider too previous anti-trust cases — the break-up of AT&T in 1984 and the confrontation with IBM in the 1970s.

In 20th century, AT&T was a monopoly in telephone services across the US. There was little room for competition. There was litigation and the Department of Justice (DOJ) ultimately forced AT&T to divest its local telephone service provider into seven ‘Baby Bells’. This split-up dramatically changed the telecommunication landscape, allowing competition and innovation in both telecom and internet.

In the 1970s, IBM faced accusations of monopolising computer market. However, unlike AT&T, DOJ did not succeed in breaking up IBM. At the same time, IBM was forced to create a subsidiary with independent management to manage technology services. It resulted into competition sneaking in — Microsoft and Intel which reshaped computer industry.

It is now Google’s turn. However, there is a distinction. The previous break ups were about the dividing of physical assets. Google’s power emanates from the vast data it has at its command. It has collected data of billions of consumers. Its data reservoir powers its ad targeting algorithms and product improvements. The level of personalisation that Google can offer or precision it can offer to target the ads, its competitors such as Bing or DuckDuckGo cannot offer in the absence of treasure trove of information.

It is a vicious circle — more users lead to more data and more data lead to more users. The competitors would remain strugglers in digital advertising, unless Google’s data advantage is curtailed.

The idea of forced data sharing comes in here. Google could be forced to share its data to its competitors. Other digital advertisers, smaller search engines and web-based businesses can be given access to Google’s data so that they can offer better products. However, this is easier said than done. Google’s data consists of search histories, locations and the likes and dislikes of consumers. Though Google itself faces issues of protecting this data, it has a comprehensive infrastructure to ensure data security and privacy. If this is shared with third-party companies despite guidelines and oversight, there are risks of data breaches. Smaller competitors may not have robust data protection protocols. It is like putting millions of users’ private information to new threats. It may violate the principles of Europe’s GDPR creating a legal clash in different jurisdictions.

Google’s success could be attributed to users’ trust. Multiple players complicates the matter. While trying to weaken Google, we are creating a bigger problem.

Thus, break-up rather than forced data sharing is a better option. There are suggestions of separating advertising and online searches. There are suggestions that YouTube could be run independently. However, these are structural changes. These do not limit Google’s ability to leverage the data it has.

Even a break-up of Google can create problems. There is so much integration in its services. Break-up can mar the experience of users. It can affect the underlying technology infrastructure. There are significant legal challenges and logistical issues.

The DOJ has to take a holistic view with an aim of benefiting the consumers. The idea is not to break up a monopoly and create a new set of problems. Though a tall order, it will define the progress of technology in future.

ches.