The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is pushing for a historic shake-up of Google’s dominance in the tech world.

We saw this with Microsoft back in 2001, and now it’s Google’s turn.
One remedy? Forcing Google to sell Chrome, the world’s most popular browser.

Other options?

Sell off the Android mobile operating and not allow Google to make search deals like the one with Apple (where Google is the default search in Safari, etc.).
This isn’t just a fight over internet dominance.
It’s a battle over the future of competition, innovation, and consumer choice.

But here’s the big question:

Does breaking up Google solve the problem, or does it just scatter the monopoly across multiple players?

Here’s what we know…

Chrome isn’t just a browser – it’s a gateway to the Internet and Google’s empire.
With a 60%+ global market share, Chrome feeds directly into Google Search, which commands 90% of the entire search engine market.
It’s not just default settings… it’s “extremely valuable real estate,” as Judge Amit Mehta described.
The DOJ says this ecosystem is anti-competitive.
Google argues it’s just good business.

Let’s play devil’s advocate.

Breaking up Google might not create competition.
Instead, it could create multiple monopolies.
Selling off Chrome or Android doesn’t guarantee innovation.
It might just shuffle the pieces.
Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, put it bluntly (and correctly): “breaking up integrated systems doesn’t always mean better consumer experiences.”

In fact, customers often want integration.

So, if Chrome, Search, and Android are split, does that mean different logins?
Higher costs?
More fragmentation?

The AI Elephant in the Room

Meanwhile, the real battle of the day isn’t browsers – it’s AI.
Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon, OpenAI, Anthropic and more are fighting tooth and nail to dominate this space.
Even Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, admits AI is where the future is headed.
The DOJ’s proposal to add guardrails around Google’s AI and data usage might sound like a step forward.
But is it addressing today’s problems with yesterday’s tools (and potentially limiting their ability to compete fairly in AI)?

What Do Users Actually Want?

Here’s where it gets tricky.
Users don’t care who owns what (I don’t think).
They care about seamless experiences, reliable products, and, let’s face it, convenience.
Do they love Chrome? Probably.
Do they love that Google Search just works? Definitely.
Would they abandon it if a better product came along? Maybe.

But here’s the rub:

Despite competitors like DuckDuckGo and even OpenAI entering the search game, users aren’t flocking to alternatives (yet).

What’s the Endgame?

The DOJ wants to “restore competition.”
But breaking up Google raises more questions than answers.
Will it foster innovation, or just make tech giants like Microsoft, Apple, Amazon stronger?
Will it create a fairer market, or just disrupt an ecosystem users already rely on?

And perhaps most critically:

If we break-up Google, what exactly are we building in its place?
For now, the DOJ’s proposals are a step toward reining in Big Tech.

But history shows us that these battles are long, messy, and rarely end the way regulators hope.

This is what Elias Makos and I discussed on CJAD 800 AM. Listen in right here.

Before you go… ThinkersOne is a new way for organizations to buy bite-sized and personalized thought leadership video content (live and recorded) from the best Thinkers in the world. If you’re looking to add excitement and big smarts to your meetings, corporate events, company off-sites, “lunch & learns” and beyond, check it out.