The new proposal, filed by DOJ on Friday, says Google must sell Chrome, “along with any assets or services necessary to successfully complete the divestiture, to a buyer approved by the plaintiffs in their sole discretion, subject to terms that the court and plaintiffs approve”, according to WIRED.

The department's recommendations would require Google to stop paying partners for preferential treatment of its search engine. They also demand that Google gives prior notification of any new joint venture, collaboration or partnership with any company that competes with Google in search or in search text ads.

The new recommendations, however, no longer require Google to divest its AI investments but direct the company to give prior notification of any future AI investments.

“Through its sheer size and unrestricted power, Google has robbed consumers and businesses of a fundamental promise owed to the public—their right to choose among competing services,” the DOJ statement accompanying the filing claims.

“Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that—no matter what occurs—Google always wins," it added.

The landmark case, which DOJ brought in 2020, is the department's largest since its years-long battle against Microsoft in the 1990s. According to the department's allegations, Google used anticompetitive tactics to protect its search dominance and forge contracts that ensure it is the default search engine on web browsers and smartphones.

The lawsuit claimed that using such a dominance, Google can adjust the auction system which it uses to sell ads and increase prices for advertisers, thereby collecting exponentially higher revenue.

Google has argued that its dominance, marked by a 90% market share in the US market, is rooted in the company's best search technology. It also says consumers are easily able to change their default search engine, and that Google does face competition from Microsoft and others.

The court ruled in August 2024 that Google did maintain an illegal monopoly, both in general search and general search text ads.