The merits of selling Chrome to a collective of publishers.
Chrome is the world’s most popular digital portal, used by people to bank, manage utilities, conduct commerce, be entertained, and access information. Who controls that portal and the associated data really matters.
If, as many expect, Google is forced to sell its Chrome browser as a result of the DoJ’s successful monopoly case against its dominance in search, it would be a powerful first step in creating a more balanced and competitive digital marketplace.
However, simply selling Chrome to the highest bidder is not the answer. The DoJ must ensure that its divestiture order is structured to ensure that the sale of Chrome doesn’t leave the market in a worse place than it started.
The person with the most money is likely to be a monopolist or someone who will be able to make monopoly profits post-acquisition. A purchaser who is a direct competitor, such as Apple would pay more but create a bigger browser monopoly problem. That also means Microsoft and Mozilla would not be allowed to buy Chrome.
What about others? The challenge is readily highlighted by the rumours about potential buyers, with both Open AI and Perplexity AI allegedly expressing interest in buying the browser.
Given the concerns that are already emerging about the competitive impact of AI harvesting on publishers content it doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to see that an AI business owning the dominant browser would likely mean it would integrate and benefit itself over rivals and cause new, and potentially worse, antitrust issues, distorting competition between different forms of AI.
Clearly, excluding deep-pocketed buyers would impact on the sale value of Chrome, but we would argue that this is a fair price for Google to pay for its years of supernormal monopoly profits. Excluding those who would simply create a new monopoly would open up the market to others who could use Chrome for positive ends.
The optimal solution would be for the world’s publishers to group together to buy the Chrome access point through which their content reaches their customers. A sufficiently broad publisher ownership would create clear incentives for Chrome to remain as an open and neutral window
A broader collective structure in the form of a trust could be use as the vehicle for Chrome as the Agent of all Users worldwide. It represents vital public infrastructure. Collective ownership would focus on creating a platform that benefits the broadest set of stakeholders and that would secure and open and competitive web in line with DOJ’s obligations.
MOW is campaigning for collective ownership. No existing organisation is suitably setup for such a task. A new entity will be required.
TABLE: Who should the Chrome Browser be sold to?
| Organization | Factors to be taken into account? | Should Chrome be sold to them? | |
| Do they have the capital? | Do they have a competitive overlap- so combination would reduce competition? Is there an incentive to improve only own products/denial of access to browser APIs + data for rivals issue? | ||
| Apple | Yes | Yes-has own browser (Safari/ Webkit) | No |
| Microsoft | Yes | Yes- has own browser (Edge based on Chromium) | No |
| Mozilla | No | Yes- has own browser (Firefox, and the Gecko engine is one of two significant engine rivals to Chromium) | No |
| Vertically integrated platform e.g. Meta | Yes | Yes—would reduce competition/create incentives to only improve own products/ deny access to browser APIs + data to rivals. | No |
| AI Company such as Perplexity | Yes | No | |
| Two Publishers e.g. New York Times and News Corp jointly | No—could be sold at a lower price | No | |
| Co-owned by the Publishers (i.e. trust or collective vehicle) | Possible – depending on number of Publishers | Collective interest in improving browser functionality for all websites. | Yes |
In short, anyone who does not have an interest in denying access to rival.