[ocdtrekkie]

You absolutely can, and the government has, banned exclusive deals and associations before. The government would require that any interactions given between two products Google presently offers as something competitors can replace either side of, with no special advantage permitted to be offered to the formerly Google products, for example.

So, for example, Google could be forbidden from requiring Google product apps are preloaded on Android phones. They could be required to give alternate web browsers and account systems equal visibility in new Chrome installs, for free. Google could face penalties for injecting Google Meet links into Zoom emails received by Gmail users.

The ways the government could prevent Google's self-preferencing is a very large matrix.

Apple has some similar examples, though less. I think Epic v. Apple will accomplish some big things there, particularly around the App Store.

[alacombe]

[citation needed]

[ocdtrekkie]

I mean, the comment is largely examples of actions the DOJ or FTC could take, so I'm not sure what your comment is trying to prove.

An example would be what was done with AIM. As a condition of AOL merging with Time Warner, AOL had to agree to allow competitors to interoperate with AIM: https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/aol-near-release-of-in...

Many of the other potential actions are similar to those already proposed or imposed upon Google in various European or other international jurisdictions. Though some of the search engine choice screen options have proven ineffective, and if the US wants to carry that forward, they might need to prohibit auctioning off the slots or other methods that just serve to add to Google's revenue at the expense of everyone else.

[alacombe]

The AIM case was entirely different as it was in the mist of the Time Warner merge event. Also, many would argue that Google or Apple are in no monopolistic position.