Federal Trade Commission backs DOJ’s proposed remedies in Google antitrust case

The Federal Trade Committee appeared in favor of the Ministry of Justice’s proposal to force Google to share research data with its competitors on Friday.

“Due to the power of Google Monopoly in public research services and text advertisements for public research, Google has been isolated from pressure to compete for users on the basis of privacy policies and their protection.”

The Ministry of Justice is trying to break up Google, a $ 1.8 trillion company, forcing it to sell the Chrome web browser, sharing years of consumer data with competitors, and stop paying billions of dollars to companies such as Apple and Samsung as Google are virtual programs on smartphones.

Trump’s Ministry of Justice plan to restructure Google HURTS consumers, national security, Exec says: “Overbroad violently”

Judge Amit Mihita spent that Google was a monopoly in a violation of Article 2 of Sherman’s law in August 2024. The Ministry of Justice may start examining Google’s activities in the artificial intelligence space to prevent future monopolistic practices.

Mihata is now holding listening sessions in treatments to determine the actions that must be taken by the technology giant to ensure competition in the market.

Google has opposed the proposed treatments from the Ministry of Justice, where the CEO of Sundar Pichai is witnessing in April that a mixture of all treatments will make investment in research and development at the same levels that it enjoys in the past “unprecedented”. Instead, Google suggested that their contracts should be renewed with smartphone manufacturers annually and to be unusual.

On May 6, the Vice president of Engineering from Google, Elizabeth Reed, witnessed that the invitation of the Ministry of Justice to Google to share user data with its competitors “undermine the user’s confidence in depth”, and may lead to a malicious one of Google’s counter -engineering actors and pumping Google search results with random messages and wrong information. She also said that Google would have to devote 20 % of the workforce in research, or up to 2000 employees, to ensure compliance with the treaties of the Ministry of Justice.

Google spends billions of dollars on the main real estate on smartphones.

“Draconian” and the risk: The former Trump Nat advisor appears to be alerting the plans of the Ministry of Justice during the Biden era of Google

“Once it is converted into a qualified competitor, there is no other protection that we can provide … if they are suddenly worried that the data may go to another place … they may decide not to use Google completely, [or] They may have decided that they would not search for certain groups. ”

When he asked to comment, the Google actor referred the Fox News Digital to the blog publications published by the company, in which it separates how the treatments proposed to consumers will harm.

“The Ministry of Justice’s proposal will force Googog to share the most sensitive and private search inquiries with companies that you may have never heard of, put your privacy and safety at risk. Your own information, without your permission, will be exposed to companies that lack a global -level Google safety protection, as it can be exploited by bad representatives,” said Google.

However, FTC referred to the invitation of the Ministry of Justice to establish a “technical committee” consisting of “experts in a mixture of software engineering, retrieving information, artificial intelligence, economy and behavioral science” as a sufficient mechanism to protect the privacy of Google users.

The technology giant says the treatments will suffocate innovation. (Marlena Sloss / Bloosberg via Getty Images / Getty Images)

The committee also referred to the former security lapses of Google as a justification for the Technical Committee (TC), as evidence that their security is not superior to their competitors.

Click here to get Fox Business on

The Federal Trade Committee wrote: “The previous Google failures in protecting the privacy of its users shows that independent supervision of the private obligations of Google is important and that it should not be assumed that Google does not suppose you have private and security practices better than qualified competitors who will receive user side data.”