Google is no stranger to being charged with anticompetitive actions, but the severity of those accusations has really heated up over the last few years. Lawsuits filed in the US and the EU — some of which the company has already lost — have argued that its dominance over online search has given it the power to favor its own products and results, all while allegedly creating backroom deals with Facebook and manipulating ad prices. Google is defending itself in a new blog post that aims to push US lawmakers to avoid passing legislation that, in its opinion, would harm the user's overall experience.

Although the editorial — authored by Kent Walker, Senior VP of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Office — is rather long, the company sums up its main points pretty well in the opening paragraphs: the US government wants to pass legislation that will make its services less secure and less valuable. Although that might sound concerning on its face, the actual arguments Google employs to demonstrate how antitrust rulings would affect the company does the exact opposite of its intention. Some of its points go as far as to imply that scaling its power over the web could even impact your health and wellbeing.

Let's start with the security points being made by Google here, as it's by far the most persuasive section of its argument. In this blog post, the company raises concerns over whether bills passed in the House and Senate may require user data to be shared with external services and organizations or prevent tools like SafeBrowsing from stopping pop-ups in Chrome by default. That certainly sounds like evidence that the overall user experience could get much worse following legal action.

However, this section does raise some eyebrows over how much of this might be overblown. For example, Google suggests it would have to "give equal prominence to a raft of spammy and low-quality services" for both search and app store alternatives, but it's unclear what exactly falls into these categories. Is DuckDuckGo considered low-quality in the eyes of Google? What about APK Mirror or F-Droid? Those aren't necessarily worse services — they're just different, complete with their own list of pros and cons.

Unfortunately, those concerns are small potatoes compared to what's brought up in the following section. According to Google, this legislation would break how search results work in its services, though its demonstrations certainly leave a bad impression. In its first example, the company suggests maps would no longer show up alongside returned links, specifically highlighting vaccine locations as an affected result. Considering the Biden administration continues to push for citizens to look up vaccine and testing sites on Google, it's hard to see this as anything but intentional.

Taking it a step further, the company suggests that urgent questions — specifically using "stroke symptoms" as the example — might return low-quality answers, further factoring in the health of its entire user base. After all, if you can't determine whether a relative is having a stroke, how are you able to judge whether you need to call an ambulance? Local businesses are also singled out, implying potential consequences of reduced foot traffic should Google no longer be allowed to display contact information and hours of operation. The piece closes with a call to action for the US government to focus on privacy, AI, and protecting kids and families rather than looking to "break" Google's products.

None of these arguments should come as any surprise, of course. The company has used similarly harsh language in the past to argue against antitrust lawsuits targeting the Play Store. Whether or not this sways public opinion — or, at the very least, lawmakers — into no longer supporting antitrust actions against it remains to be seen, but one thing is now abundantly clear. Google knows how much its apps factor into every facet of your daily life, and it's prepared to use that leverage to its fullest potential.