In a sweeping act of regulatory Internet Explorer-level timing, the Department of Justice announced last week that Google must sell Chrome, its popular web browser, to resolve a monopoly case that began during the first Trump administration. The decision comes a mere 16 years after Chrome’s launch, proving once again that the wheels of justice turn at approximately the same speed as your grandmother discovering the mute button on Zoom.
“After careful consideration and approximately 4,500 days of deliberation, we’ve determined that separating Google from Chrome is essential to restoring competition to the search market,” declared fictional DOJ Antitrust Division Chief Marcus Williams, speaking from a flip phone he still uses “just to be safe.” “Next on our agenda: investigating whether this ‘iPhone’ device might catch on.”
The DOJ’s proposal to separate Google from its browser reveals a profound misunderstanding of how digital monopolies work in the 2020s—like trying to drain the ocean by removing a single bucket of water while ignoring the river feeding it.
The Browser That Launched a Thousand Ships (Then Sank All Competition)
Chrome, with its 61% market share in the US, has undoubtedly been a valuable distribution channel for Google’s search engine. When you download Chrome, you’re essentially inviting Google’s search algorithm to move in, put its feet on your coffee table, and monitor your every digital movement.
“Chrome was our Trojan Horse,” admits fictional Google VP of Strategic Distribution Jennifer Chen. “Except instead of hiding soldiers inside, we filled it with tracking pixels and default settings that users could theoretically change, if they could navigate 17 menu layers and decode our privacy settings, which were intentionally written to make War and Peace seem concise.”
While the DOJ focuses on Chrome, industry experts note that Google’s $26.3 billion annual payments to companies like Apple and Samsung to secure default search status across devices represent a far more significant advantage. Google essentially pays a toll to control every on-ramp to the information superhighway.
“It’s like being the only gas station in town, then buying all the roads, then paying people to remove the steering wheels from their cars so they can only drive to your gas station,” explains fictional tech analyst David Park. “Then, for good measure, convincing everyone that other types of fuel might damage their engines.”
The Digital Drug Lord Strategy: Product and Distribution
Google’s market dominance mirrors the classic drug dealer playbook: control both the product and its distribution. Chrome is merely one pusher in a vast network that includes Android, which powers over three billion devices worldwide.
“We’re not using the drug dealer analogy,” clarified fictional Google spokesperson Sarah Reynolds during a press conference. “We prefer to think of ourselves as ‘digital nutrition specialists’ who just happen to have made our vitamins so essential that withdrawal causes severe informational deficiencies.”
The fictional Institute for Digital Dependency reports that 78% of internet users would experience “severe search withdrawal symptoms” if forced to use alternatives like Bing or DuckDuckGo, including confusion, disorientation, and the uncontrollable urge to say “just Google it” even when they’re using another search engine.
Android, which the DOJ has only mentioned as a potential target if other remedies fail, represents Google’s true distribution masterstroke. With a 46% share of the global operating system market, Android ensures Google’s services remain front and center for billions of users.
“Android makes Chrome look like a lemonade stand,” says fictional competition expert Dr. Robert Chen. “It’s like worrying about a paper cut while ignoring the shark that’s eating your legs.”
The Great Google Garage Sale: Everything Must Go (Except What Matters)
The DOJ has crafted what they believe is a clever solution: make Google sell Chrome and prevent deals that make Google the default search engine. This approach exhibits all the strategic brilliance of banning napkins to solve world hunger.
“We believe forcing Google to sell Chrome will restore competition to the search market,” announced fictitious DOJ spokesperson Emily Johnson. When asked how this would affect Google’s Android dominance, Johnson appeared confused: “Android? Is that the robot from Star Wars?”
According to the completely fabricated International Council on Technological Monopolies, removing Chrome from Google’s portfolio would reduce its search dominance by approximately 4%, roughly equivalent to removing a single pepperoni from a 30-inch pizza.
Meanwhile, Google executives are reportedly responding to the Chrome divestiture threat with all the concern of someone who’s been told they need to part with their appendix.
“Oh no, not Chrome,” fictional Google CEO Sundar Pichai reportedly said in a tone usually reserved for discovering you’re out of your least favorite yogurt flavor. “How will we ever manage with just Android, YouTube, Gmail, Maps, Drive, Photos, Docs, and our complete surveillance of approximately 92% of all human digital activity?”
The Five Stages of Monopoly Grief
The tech industry has responded to the DOJ’s proposal with reactions ranging from amusement to pity. The fictional Digital Competition Alliance has identified what they call the “Five Stages of Antitrust Grief”:
- Denial: “Google doesn’t have a monopoly; users just happen to prefer their products.”
- Anger: “How dare the government interfere with innovation!”
- Bargaining: “What if we just change our user agreements to include more checkboxes?”
- Depression: “Maybe we should just break up all tech companies and return to typewriters.”
- Acceptance: “Let’s sell Chrome and pretend it matters while continuing business as usual.”
Most analysts believe Google is firmly in the bargaining stage, offering to make minor adjustments to its agreements rather than undergo significant structural changes. In its own proposal, Google suggested removing exclusive conditions on Chrome and Google Search—effectively offering to share crumbs from its feast while keeping the entire bakery.
The Antitrust Time Machine
Perhaps the most absurd aspect of the DOJ’s Chrome divestiture plan is its timing. After nearly two decades of allowing Google to build an all-encompassing digital empire, regulators have decided that removing one piece of it in 2025 might solve the problem.
“Forcing Google to sell Chrome now is like asking Genghis Khan to give back a horse after he’s conquered most of Asia,” explains fictional digital historian Dr. Amanda Zhao. “It’s a nice gesture, but it doesn’t address the empire.”
The fictional Bureau of Delayed Regulatory Action estimates that the DOJ’s Chrome divestiture plan would have been approximately 87% more effective if implemented in 2013, before Google had fully entrenched its ecosystem.
Just One Small Problem: Who Would Buy It?
If Google were forced to sell Chrome, a crucial question emerges: who would buy a browser whose primary function is serving as a delivery system for Google search?
“We’ve conducted extensive market research,” says fictional investment banker Michael Thompson. “Potential buyers include masochists, amnesiacs, and people who still think Netscape is coming back.”
The fictional Technological Acquisition Probability Index gives “companies willing to purchase Chrome without Google search integration” a market existence probability of just 12%, roughly equivalent to the likelihood of someone reading a complete terms of service agreement.
The Unexpected Plot Twist
As legal experts predict the Chrome divestiture case will drag on through appeals until approximately 2029, a curious development has emerged in Google’s headquarters. Sources report that Google has secretly accelerated work on a new project codenamed “Chameleon”—a lightweight “browser-like experience” built directly into Android that wouldn’t technically qualify as a browser under current legal definitions.
“It’s not a browser, it’s a ‘digital content visualization portal,'” explains fictional Google engineer Jason Miller. “It just happens to do everything Chrome does, but it’s built so deeply into Android that separating it would be like trying to remove the eggs from a baked cake.”
As the DOJ focuses its regulatory energy on yesterday’s distribution channels, Google is already building tomorrow’s. By the time Chrome is divested—if it ever happens—its replacement will be so thoroughly integrated into Android that users won’t even realize they’re using a browser at all.
And therein lies the true absurdity of the situation: in the time it takes regulators to address one aspect of Google’s monopoly, the company will have built three new ones. It’s digital whack-a-mole, where the government has a single rubber mallet and Google controls both the machine and the laws of physics.
The DOJ may eventually force Google to sell Chrome, but by then, it will be like forcing someone to sell their flip phone after they’ve already upgraded to brain implants. The antitrust enforcers are playing checkers, while Google is playing three-dimensional chess on a board it designed, manufactured, and continually redesigns mid-game.
If there’s any lesson in this saga, it’s that monopolies in the digital age aren’t built on single products but on ecosystems that reinforce each other. Removing Chrome from Google is like removing a single tentacle from an octopus—inconvenient perhaps, but hardly life-threatening to a creature with seven more appendages and the ability to grow new ones.
