Congress of the United States

Washington, DC 20515
August 14, 2024

Sundar Pichai
Chief Executive Officer
Alphabet, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043

Dear Mr. Pichai,

As members of Congress concerned about Big Tech’s harmful impact on a free and competitive marketplace, we
write to convey our expectation that Google will adhere fully to all forthcoming federal court rulings in the
Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust case alleging that Google unlawfully monopolized the market for online
search. We expect that Google will faithfully comply with these rulings and operate in a transparent manner when
information is requested of your company by Congress.

Over the course of DOJ’s trial against Google, the public heard troubling evidence that Google has acted to stifle
competition to its market-dominant search engine. Google pays other companies, including Apple, more than $20
billion per year to make its product the default search engine on computers and smartphones.1 According to DOJ,
these default contracts have made it impossible for rival search engines to effectively compete, leaving Google with
a market share above 90 percent—and depriving American consumers of a real choice.2 All of our constituents feel
the effects of Google’s entrenched market power, including documented suppression of conservative voices on
Google’s channels and, more recently, the manipulation of Google’s autocomplete search function that prevented
Americans from easily accessing information relevant to the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on President
Trump.3 Furthermore, there remains serious concern about the Google workforce itself, which pressured you to
scuttle a joint venture with the Pentagon and which has signaled its desire to leverage your market position to
undermine law enforcement efforts across the country.4

Now that the Court has found Google liable for unlawfully monopolizing the online search market, it will hold a
separate hearing to consider a remedy. DOJ has indicated it could seek a range of possible remedies to restore
competition, including equitable remedies that our nation’s broad antitrust laws permit.5 Some of those remedies

1 Matthew Barakat, “Google, Justice Department make final arguments about whether search engine is a monopoly,”
Associated Press (May 3, 2024), https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-closings-trial-monopoly-
aa1c5b9f859e9428aec15bb0a61bcaa8.
2 Sumit Sharma, “An Analysis of Potential Remedies to Address Google’s Search Monopoly,” Consumer Reports (Feb.

16, 2024), at 4, https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/An-Analysis-of-Potential-

Remedies-to-Address-Googles-Search-Monopoly_16-Feb-2024-2.pdf.
3 See, e.g., “Congressman Gaetz Demands Answers from DHS on Big Tech Censorship of Trump Assassination

Attempt,” available at https://gaetz.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-gaetz-demands-answers-dhs-big-

tech-censorship-trump-assassination.
4Business Insider, “Googlers Sent Letter to CEO Sundar Pichai to Stop Working with Police,” available at

https://www.businessinsider.com/googlers-send-letter-ceo-sundar-pichai-stop-working-with-police-2020-
6#:~:text=More%20than%201%2C600%20Google%20employees%20have%20signed%20a%20letter%20to,George%
20Floyd%20and%20Breonna%20Taylor.
5 “What’s next in Google’s court battle with the US Justice Department?” Reuters (Nov. 16, 2023),

https://www.reuters.com/legal/whats-next-googles-court-battle-with-us-justice-department-2023-11-16/.
could impose new conduct-based obligations on Google.6 We expect Google to abide by any court-imposed remedy
and, going forward, to promote competition and eliminate censorship that has undermined our country’s tradition
of unfettered discourse and open debate.

Whatever remedy the court imposes, we will be watching closely to ensure that Google follows the law. The
resolution of DOJ’s case comes at a possible inflection point, as the rise of artificial intelligence has the potential to
reshape competitive dynamics in online search—or to further entrench Google’s monopoly.7 Google continues to
integrate its own AI technology ever deeper into its search results, placing an AI “knowledge box” at the top of its
results. Google’s apparent desire to extend its dominance amid the arrival of AI-integrated search suggests that the
company may have an incentive to evade any behavioral conditions included in the court’s remedy.

We express these concerns because of the unfortunate, long-running history of Big Tech firms flouting court rulings
and settlements intended to redress their anticompetitive behavior. For example, serious allegations have been made
regarding Apple’s compliance with a 2021 injunction requiring the company to allow more competition in its app
store.8 It would be disappointing to see Google follow in Apple’s stead, engaging in an effort to skirt the law and
evade legal responsibility.

While we appreciate Google’s willingness to engage with our offices on issues of concern, it would be a mistake for
your company to believe that the influence it has bought in Washington will enable it to successfully avoid a potential
antitrust remedy and keep its monopoly intact. In 2023 alone, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, spent nearly $15
million on lobbying.9 Eric Schmidt, Google’s former CEO, has admitted that close government ties work in Google’s
favor.10 Mr. Schmidt has used his foundation to influence government policy and even indirectly paid the salaries of
employees in the Biden White House.11 Let us assure you: Republicans in Congress are prepared to hold Google to
account if it fails to abide by its obligations under the court’s remedy.

If we observe any effort by Google to evade a court-imposed remedy, we will be vigilant to pursue any and all
solutions necessary to hold your company accountable and fully restore competition in online search.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your cooperation and commitment to fair
competition in the digital marketplace.

Sincerely,

Matt Gaetz Michael S. Lee

Member of Congress United States Senator

6 Sharma, supra note 2, at 8–11, 16–20.

7 Fiona Scott Morton and David Dinelli, “Antitrust Enforcers Must Act Now To Ensure the Google Search Case
Delivers on Its Promise,” ProMarket (Apr. 27, 2024), https://www.promarket.org/2024/04/27/antitrust-enforcers-
must-act-now-to-ensure-the-google-search-case-delivers-on-its-promise/.
8 Mike Scarcella, “Apple exec Schiller defends App Store changes in Epic Games case,” Reuters (May 22, 2024),

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apple-exec-schiller-defends-app-store-changes-epic-games-case-2024-05-
22/.
9 Client Profile: Alphabet Inc, Open Secrets, https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-

lobbying/clients/summary?id=D000067823.
10 Blake Schmidt and Anna Edgerton, “Google’s Former CEO Is Leveraging His $27 Billion Fortune to Shape AI

Policy,” Bloomberg (Sept. 8, 2023), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-08/google-ex-ceo-eric-

schmidt-influences-ai-policy-with-27-billion-fortune.
11 Alex Thompson, “A Google billionaire’s fingerprints are all over Biden’s science office,” Politico (Mar. 28, 2022),

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/28/google-billionaire-joe-biden-science-office-00020712.