Late Wednesday, the Justice Department and several states urged a federal court to compel Google to divest Chrome, its widely-used web browser. This proposed action could significantly impact the $2 trillion company’s operations and transform competition on the internet.

The request followed an August ruling by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Mehta found that Google had unlawfully preserved its monopoly in online search and directed the Justice Department and the states involved in the antitrust case to propose remedies by Wednesday’s deadline.

Beyond selling Chrome, the government also proposed that Google be given a choice: either divest Android, its mobile operating system, or cease requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google services on Android-powered devices. Should Google violate these conditions or fail to foster competition, the government reserved the right to force the sale of Android in the future.

Additionally, the government sought to prohibit Google from entering paid agreements with Apple and other companies to remain the default search engine on smartphones and web browsers. It also recommended that Google allow competing search engines to display its search results and access its data for the next decade.

These proposals represent some of the most sweeping remedies in a tech antitrust case since the Justice Department’s move to break up Microsoft in 2000. If adopted, they could set a precedent for similar cases targeting other tech giants like Apple, Amazon, and Meta.

For Google, divesting Chrome and Android would be a major setback. Chrome, launched in 2008, dominates the browser market with approximately 67% of global users, according to Statcounter. Meanwhile, Android powers an estimated 71% of mobile devices worldwide. Both are integral to Google’s ecosystem, which ties users to its products.

In its filing, the government argued that Google’s practices had unfairly tilted the market in its favor. “The playing field is not level because of Google’s conduct, and the company’s dominance reflects the benefits of an illegally obtained advantage,” the filing stated.

However, legal experts have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of forcing Google to sell Chrome. Doug Melamed, a Stanford Law School fellow and former Justice Department antitrust official, noted that similar attempts, like breaking up Microsoft, were ultimately overturned on appeal.

Google is expected to submit its counterproposals for addressing the search monopoly by December 20, with Judge Mehta likely to hear arguments on the remedies next spring. A decision is anticipated by summer.

Google’s global affairs president, Kent Walker, criticized the government’s proposals as excessive. “The DOJ’s overreaching proposals would dismantle popular and useful Google products far beyond search,” Walker wrote in a blog post.

In recent years, regulators have intensified scrutiny of tech giants. The Justice Department has also filed suits against Google over its advertising dominance and Apple for restricting consumer choice within its ecosystem. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has pursued cases against Amazon and Meta for allegedly stifling competition.

The government’s success in the Google search case followed a 10-week trial, where it argued that Google’s exclusive deals with Apple, Mozilla, Samsung, and others unfairly entrenched its dominance by making it the default search engine. In 2021, Google paid $26.3 billion for these agreements, according to trial evidence.

Google countered that its agreements were lawful and that users chose its search engine for its superior performance compared to competitors like Bing or DuckDuckGo.

The government also recommended that Judge Mehta order Google to divest stakes in AI firms developing technologies that could rival its search engine. Google, for instance, has invested in Anthropic, an AI startup behind the chatbot Claude. Furthermore, publishers and content creators should be allowed to opt out of having their content used to train Google’s AI models, the government argued.

As the battle continues, closing arguments for another major antitrust case against Google, focused on advertising technology, are scheduled for Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.