Chrome's chief says Google integration makes separation hard

During a Justice Department antitrust hearing on April, 25, Chrome general manager Parisa Tabriz said that Chrome is closely integrated with Google’s broader infrastructure, making it difficult to separate its features.

She highlighted that Chrome’s functionality relies on shared Google infrastructure for features like safe browsing and password breach notifications.

These interdependencies, developed over 17 years, complicate efforts to replicate Chrome’s capabilities outside of Google’s ecosystem.

The Justice Department has proposed that Google divest Chrome and share some data it collects for search results.

They are also seeking to restrict Google from paying for search engine defaults, which could affect AI products like Gemini.

While a Justice Department expert argued that transferring Chrome to another company is feasible, Tabriz dismissed the idea, noting Google’s contributions to the open-source Chromium Project, including providing over 90% of its code since 2015.

🔗 Source: Bloomberg

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ The current browser battle echoes the pivotal Microsoft antitrust case

The Google-Chrome divestiture debate has parallels to the landmark 1990s Microsoft case over Internet Explorer bundling with Windows.

Microsoft’s practice of bundling Internet Explorer with Windows was deemed anticompetitive, leading to significant antitrust action that reshaped the tech landscape and created space for competitors like Google to emerge 1.

This historical precedent explains why the DOJ is focusing on Chrome’s relationship with Google Search, viewing the browser as a potential control point that could be leveraged unfairly against competitors.

The Microsoft case established that browsers serve as critical gateways to the internet, making them central to competition policy—a framework that continues to guide regulatory thinking about Chrome’s 66% global market share.

Like Microsoft’s defense that Internet Explorer was integrated with Windows, Google argues that Chrome has “17 years of collaboration” with other Google systems and that separation would disrupt functionality.

2️⃣ EU’s more aggressive regulatory approach has consistently challenged Google’s dominance

While the current U.S. case represents a significant shift in domestic antitrust enforcement, the European Union has consistently taken stronger regulatory action against Google for years.