A court found Google liable for unlawfully monopolizing online search and its remedies are intended to reposition the market and allow rivals to compete fairly. Google (obviously) disagrees that it is operating a monopoly, but before it can appeal This underlying conclusion is that it is trying to limit the consequences when it loses.

Google justifies this by saying that search deals were at the heart of the case and therefore a court should target them. Under the proposal, Google could not strike deals with Android phone makers that require the addition of mobile search in exchange for access to other Google apps. Phone manufacturers cannot be required to exclude competing search engines or third-party browsers. Browser companies like Mozilla would be given more flexibility in setting competing search engines as the default.

Perhaps the biggest concession is that this agreement would explicitly end Google’s long-standing multi-billion-dollar search contract with Apple. It would prevent Google from entering into agreements that make Google Search the default engine for all “proprietary Apple features or functionality, including Siri and Spotlight” in the US – unless the agreement allows Apple, annually and “expressly.” “allows you to choose a different default search engine in your browser” to promote other search engines.

And in a nod to some concerns from the U.S. Department of Justice that Google is shutting out competing AI-powered search tools and chatbots, Google is proposing to ban requiring phone makers to add the Gemini Assistant mobile app to access other Google offerings can.

The government has proposed 10 years of restrictions, but Google’s counter-proposal covers just three years – arguing that nothing more is needed because “the pace of innovation in search has been extraordinary” and regulating a “rapidly changing industry” like search is stifling innovation would slow down.

If the court accepts Google’s simplified proposal to the DOJ, the company could lose some lucrative or strategically advantageous deals, but its business would remain intact. The company wouldn’t have to shut down its Chrome browser or face an Android divestment order. And it wouldn’t have to share many of the underlying signals that help it figure out how to provide useful search results so rivals can catch up and exert real competitive pressure, as the DOJ hopes.

Both Google and the DOJ’s proposals are essentially starting points from which the judge can work. But Google figures it might be easier to sell a simple proposal that addresses a big, specific problem raised in the process. It’s about positioning the government’s proposals as extreme and going beyond the scope of the judge’s previous decision, perhaps – Google is likely to tell the court – even in a way that could be overturned on appeal.

This was not well received by at least one of Google’s competitors, search engine company DuckDuckGo. “Google’s proposal seeks to maintain the status quo and change as little as possible,” spokesman Kamyl Bazbaz said in a statement. Both sides will argue their case in federal court in Washington, DC, beginning April 22.