By Siddharth Tai

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is again facing down a corporate behemoth 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 claimed that Google exerts undue control over online search, digital advertising, and the broader internet ecosystem. Now, as an antitrust judgment against the tech giant looms, one of the potential remedies 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. While designed to reinvigorate competition, this remedy may have significant unintended consequences for user privacy.

To understand how the DOJ may proceed to weaken Google’s market dominance, it’s helpful to look back at other landmark antitrust cases and see where Google fits in — and how the delicate balance between market competition and consumer privacy might be upset in ways few anticipate. The DOJ’s case against Google harkens back to some of US’ most famous antitrust cases. Two cases serve as prime examples: the break-up 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 nearly all telephone services across the US. But its stranglehold on the telecommunications market left little room for competition, innovation, or customer choice. After years of legal battles, the DOJ ultimately forced AT&T to divest its local telephone service providers into seven “Baby Bells”. This break-up dramatically changed the industry, ushering in an era of competition that spurred innovation in telecommunications and, later, the internet. Similarly, in the 1970s, IBM faced accusations of monopolising the computer market. Though the DOJ never entirely succeeded in breaking up IBM (though it did force it to create a technology services subsidiary with its own management), the long-running antitrust suit contributed to the rise of competitors like Microsoft and Intel, reshaping the computer industry.

Now, it’s Google’s turn. But there’s a key difference: while previous break-ups were primarily about dividing physical assets (like phone lines or computer data centres), Google’s power lies in its vast troves of data. Google’s dominance is not just a matter of 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 an enormous data reservoir that fuels its ad targeting algorithms and product improvements. Competitors like Bing or DuckDuckGo simply cannot offer the same level of personalisation or precision because they don’t have access to this treasure trove of information.
This creates a vicious cycle: more users choose Google services, generating more data, enhancing 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 curtailed.

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 competitors. Smaller search engines, digital advertisers, and other web-based businesses could theoretically use Google’s data to build better products, attracting users with little reason to leave Google’s ecosystem.
On paper, forced data-sharing may seem a plausible solution to Google’s market dominance. However, Google’s data is susceptible. It includes detailed information about individual users’ search habits, browsing histories, locations, and even voice recordings via services like Google Assistant. While Google itself is far from perfect when protecting this data — having faced multiple fines and lawsuits over privacy violations — it still has a comprehensive infrastructure to manage user data securely.

But what happens when this data is handed over 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 this data is in the hands of additional parties, its potential to be mismanaged increases exponentially.

If the DOJ mandates that Google share its data, it could inadvertently expose millions of users’ private information to new threats. Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation has provisions that could conflict with forced data-sharing, given its emphasis on limiting data collection and enforcing the principle of data minimisation. Sharing user data with third parties en masse might violate these principles, creating a legal clash between regulatory frameworks in different jurisdictions.

Moreover, users trust Google (however begrudgingly) because they know what to expect. Introducing more players, each with its own privacy policies and security practices, complicates the already murky data privacy landscape. It’s easy to imagine a future where attempting to reduce Google’s power creates an even bigger privacy problem.

Given these concerns, breaking up Google’s various business units may seem like a more straightforward remedy than forced data-sharing. Some have proposed that Google’s advertising business be separated from its search engine or that YouTube be spun off as a separate entity. These structural changes would limit Google’s ability to leverage its data across different products, diminishing its competitive advantage without requiring that data be shared.

However, even a break-up of this magnitude would face numerous hurdles. Google has spent years tightly integrating its services, making it difficult to separate its arms without harming the user experience or the underlying technology infrastructure. As with any major corporate break-up, significant legal challenges and logistical nightmares would exist.
As the DOJ moves forward, it faces a critical challenge: ensuring its actions truly benefit consumers and not simply replace one 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 capiltalist.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of FinancialExpress.com. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.