Following the Department of Justice's (DOJ) antitrust trial victory earlier this year, Google has submitted a proposal to the court, offering a limited set of remedies to address the ruling that it illegally monopolized online search. The tech giant's proposal is significantly more modest than the sweeping changes demanded by the DOJ, and is aimed at limiting the fallout and preserving its search business.

The DOJ had proposed a range of drastic measures, including forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser, syndicate its search results, and avoid exclusive deals with companies like Apple for default search placement. The DOJ even left open the possibility of forcing an Android sale. In contrast, Google's proposal focuses on prohibiting default placement deals for a period of three years, a significantly shorter timeframe than the ten years proposed by the DOJ.

At the heart of Google's proposal is the prohibition of default placement deals, which the company believes were the core issue in the antitrust case. Under this proposal, Google would be barred from entering agreements with Android phone manufacturers that require adding mobile search in exchange for access to other Google apps. Additionally, Google would not be allowed to require phone makers to exclude rival search engines or third-party browsers. This would give browser companies like Mozilla more flexibility in setting rival search engines as defaults.

One of the most significant concessions in Google's proposal is the termination of its long-running multibillion-dollar search deal with Apple. The agreement would specifically end Google's ability to make Google Search the default engine on any "proprietary Apple feature or functionality, including Siri and Spotlight" in the US, unless the deal allows Apple to choose a different default search engine on its browser annually and "expressly permits" it to promote other search engines.

Google's proposal also addresses some of the DOJ's concerns about the company locking out rival AI-powered search tools and chatbots. The tech giant proposes that it should be disallowed from requiring phone makers to add its Gemini Assistant mobile app in order to access other Google offerings.

Google argues that its proposal is sufficient because "the pace of innovation in search has been extraordinary" and regulating a "fast-changing industry" like search would slow innovation. The company is betting that its streamlined proposal will be more appealing to the court than the DOJ's more comprehensive demands.

However, not everyone is convinced by Google's proposal. DuckDuckGo, a rival search engine company, has expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal, stating that it "attempts to maintain the status quo and change as little as possible." Both sides will present their cases in a federal court in Washington, DC, beginning on April 22.

The outcome of this proposal will have significant implications for the future of online search and the tech industry as a whole. As the court weighs the competing proposals, it will need to balance the need to promote competition and innovation with the risk of over-regulating a rapidly evolving industry.