Connect with us

Business

Google could be forced to sell Chrome. Here's what you need to know

Published

on

Google could be forced to sell Chrome. Here's what you need to know

Google and federal officials are battling it out over a proposal that the tech giant be forced to sell its popular Chrome web browser to restore competition to the online search market.

The proposal, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and several states this week, came after a federal judge ruled that Google maintained an illegal monopoly over internet search.

The landmark decision opened the door to the current showdown over potential remedies that could reshape the tech giant’s multibillion-dollar business. As part of their proposed penalties, Justice Department officials also suggested the judge impose restrictions on Android, Google’s mobile operating system, to prevent it from favoring Google products.

The Department of Justice says forcing Google to divest Chrome would create more competition and stop the search giant’s control over a “browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet.” Google pushed back, calling the request an “unprecedented government overreach” that would harm consumers and U.S. tech leadership.

“This is to some extent a negotiating dance,” said George Hay, a Cornell University law professor and antitrust expert. “The DOJ is probably trying to get Google to be more cooperative in coming up with remedies that will fix the problem.”

Advertisement

Here’s what you need to know:

What are U.S. officials proposing?

The Justice Department outlined for the judge several possible solutions in its 23-page court filing, including forcing Google to sell Chrome and potentially Android as well if the company does not adequately address its practice of requiring smartphone makers to use Google products embedded in Android.

“The playing field is not level because of Google’s conduct, and Google’s quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired,” the filing says. “The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages.”

The Justice Department wants to bar Google from entering into exclusive agreements with content publishers, as well as owning or acquiring any interests in search rivals. Publishers should also be able to opt out of having Google use their content to train artificial intelligence tools, under the proposal. And Justice Department officials want advertisers to have more access to data and control over ads that show up in Google search results.

Advertisement

The Justice Department is trying to make consumers more aware of choices outside of Google, the world’s most popular search engine. Another potential fix includes requiring Google to display a “choice screen” on every Google browser when a user hasn’t selected a default search engine.

What’s Google’s response?

Google thinks the government’s proposal goes too far. Instead, the company thinks the government should focus solutions more narrowly on agreements it has with Apple, Mozilla, smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers that require the companies to favor Google’s search engine over others.

Kent Walker, chief legal officer at Google and its parent company, Alphabet, in a blog post called the government’s proposal a “radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership.”

Google opposes the idea that it should install “choice screens” on its browser and alleges that would hinder people’s abilities to use the company’s products.

Advertisement

Will this affect the way I search online?

Because Google’s punishment hasn’t been decided, it is too early to say how internet search could be affected. Antitrust experts said it depends on what remedies the judge in the case decides on and whether they withstand scrutiny by an appeals court. Some experts questioned whether any changes, even a forced sale of Chrome, would be effective in getting people to use other search engines.

“It will still be there in some way, shape or form, but it may be more subtle in terms of the effects on consumers,” said Shubha Ghosh, a law professor at Syracuse University.

It’s unclear who is interested in buying Google Chrome, which Bloomberg reported could be worth up to $20 billion.

Could the Trump administration affect Google’s punishment?

Advertisement

Possibly. President-elect Donald Trump has criticized Google over allegations that the search giant censors conservative speech, which the company has repeatedly denied.

But Trump, who reportedly took a phone call with Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai after he won the U.S. presidential election, has also stopped short of saying he would break up the search giant.

“It’s a very dangerous thing because we want to have great companies,” Trump said in an October interview moderated by Bloomberg News. “We don’t want China to have these companies. Right now, China is afraid of Google.”

Hay said he doesn’t anticipate Trump will pull the plug on the case, but the Justice Department could soften its proposed remedies.

What happens next?

Advertisement

Google said it will file its own proposals next month. Court hearings on Google’s punishment are scheduled to begin in April. Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is overseeing the case, is expected to make a decision on Google’s punishment by August 2025.

The Associated Press was used in compiling this report.

Business

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Published

on

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.

In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”

“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”

Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.

In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.

Advertisement

The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.

“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.

Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.

The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.

Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.

Advertisement

Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.

Continue Reading

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending