That's not an option now thanks to multiple antitrust regulatories. Google actually tried to get rid of 3p cookies to use it as an advantage against competitors as well as privacy friendly PR but this has been blocked. One example from CMA (but not limited to): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e0...

It's certainly interesting. The CMA seems to be attempting to balance interests of multiple parties, including both user privacy, healthy competition in the ads space, and the ability for digital publishers to generate revenue from displaying ads.

However, most of it appears to focus on the way Google's superior access to information could distort competition. It's not just about cookies. For example. Google could mine synced history data from Chrome.

Now, I'm not so naive as to think this would actually happen, but again, the Ars author's solution here could solve that particular problem: If Google ceased all behavior-based advertising in favor of, for example, subject-based advertising, there would be no distortions to competition. Google can't track you, and neither can other advertisers. Everyone has a level playing field.

Of course, that would drop revenues for digital publishers and advertising networks, including Google, but it would solve the problems of user privacy and distorted competition.

The one thing this ruling makes very clear though, is that it's very difficult to balance these concerns while Google makes a browser. There's a conflict between Google running a behavior-based advertising network and shipping a browser, and these regulatory bodies seem to be bending over backwards to try to find a solution where both of these things can exist. They could most certainly have taken the much easier road of forcing Google to discontinue Chrome.

That still doesn't work. Google already has built dominant ad network/serving infrastructure as well as exclusive access to billions of its first party user data which gives asymmetric power to Google against any other competitors. Probably the only advantage that those competitors have is their own "secret sauce" on user data and removing 3p cookie effectively eliminates this edge and gives Google unilateral power.

The core problem is that privacy and antitrust regulations usually don't work very well together unless it's carefully designed. EU tried it for GDPR (which took 4 years to design) and it only has strengthened big-tech's position.

> They could most certainly have taken the much easier road of forcing Google to discontinue Chrome.

It's much easier said than done. What's the legal basis of doing this? The only applicable law is too general and requires intervention from the Judiciary. And this level of landmark antitrust cases usually takes several years with extremely high level of uncertainties. And it's worth noting that the US congress has failed to introduce a basic level of digital antitrust laws such as AICOA or OAMA, so good luck with any new direct regulations.

And even if assuming that everything works in your favor, the result is almost guaranteed to be other big guys (likely MS) taking the share and doing something worse since the market is already strongly incentivizing this behavior. To apply the same "correction", it will take another multiple years of trial against more well prepared defendant. Regulators and legislators are not that dumb and they actually care about all those unintended consequences.

I mentioned this in another reply, but I was imprecise with my language here. I meant that regulators could decide it's not OK for Google to have both a dominant ad network and a dominant browser. Discontinuing Chrome would be one remedy here, but there are also other remedies, such as spinning off Chrome development to a separate company.

As for the legal basis for doing that, I'm not as familiar with UK or EU law as I am with US law, but this was in response to the linked UK ruling by the CMA, where I was expressing my awe at how much effort they were going to in order to try to balance competing interests. I don't think regulators are dumb or lazy, but the report very clearly identifies that the core of the problem is that Google has both a dominant ad network and a dominant browser, but they still went through a lot of trouble to try to find a workable solution.

As for US law, Judge Jackson did rule that Microsoft should be split into two separate companies, one for the OS, and the other for apps, but was overruled on appeal. However, that appeal was muddied by other issues as well, and the case never came before the Supreme Court.

You're right about the US congress, but Europe does seem more eager to go after big tech companies.

Regarding the "easier road" of having Google discontinue Chrome: WTF That would not be easier and would affect so much more.

But I was a bit imprecise with my language there. There are other regulatory remedies to a ruling like that besides discontinuing Chrome. For example, it could be spun off into a separate company, one which does not share any data with Google.

As for the fantasy scenario where Google stops behavior-based tracking, reading that ruling, I think they could get away with it, but there would be some grumbling. Let's say Google stopped tracking on its end, and then six months later, decided to block third-party cookies by default. Regulators could insist that Google keep third-party cookies on, but what leg would they have to stand on? Yes, it would affect their competitors in a big way, but it wouldn't give Google a distorting advantage over them.

And with every other browser blocking third-party cookies, if regulators tried to force Google to keep them, Google could just stop developing Chrome. Without behavior-based tracking, they have no business reason to develop it anymore, and how could regulators possibly say, "You have to keep making a browser, even though your competitors don't"?