The U.S. Department of Justice is considering an unprecedented move to break up Alphabet-owned Google following a historic court ruling that found the tech giant monopolized the online search market, according to insiders familiar with the discussion, Bloomberg reports.

If it goes through with the move, it would be Washington’s first attempt to liquidate a company for illegal monopolization since the failed attempt to break up Microsoft two decades ago. Less drastic measures under consideration include forcing Google to share more data with competitors and imposing restrictions to prevent it from gaining an unfair advantage in artificial intelligence products.

If the U.S. Department of Justice goes ahead with the split of Google, the most likely candidates for sale are the Android operating system and the Google Chrome web browser, insiders said. Another possibility under consideration is to force Google to sell its AdWords platform, which is used to sell text ads.

These discussions have gained relevance following Judge Amit Mehta’s August 5 ruling that Google illegally monopolized the online search and text advertising markets. Although Google plans to appeal, Mehta ordered both sides to start preparing for the next phase of the case, which will include the government’s proposals to restore competition – possibly even by breaking up the company.

Any government plan would require the approval of Judge Mehta, who would then order Google to comply. A forced split of Google would be the largest dismantling of a U.S. company since the AT&T split in the 1980s.

US Department of Justice lawyers advising companies affected by Google’s actions have expressed concern that Google’s dominance in search gives it an advantage in the development of artificial intelligence technologies. As part of this measure, the government may try to prohibit Google from requiring websites to give permission for their content to be used in Google’s AI products in order to appear in search results.

One of the most discussed competition remedies by the US Department of Justice is the separation of Google’s Android operating system, which is used on approximately 2.5 billion devices worldwide. In his ruling, Mehta found that Google’s agreements with device manufacturers requiring them to install the Google search widget and Chrome browser in a way that prevents their removal effectively block competition from other search engines.

Mehta’s ruling follows a December verdict by a California jury that found Google monopolized the distribution of Android applications. While the judge in the case has not yet decided on remedies, the Federal Trade Commission has weighed in, saying that Google should not be allowed to “reap the benefits of illegal monopolization.”

Google has paid up to $26 billion to make its search engine the default on various devices and web browsers, with $20 billion of that amount going to Apple.

The Mehta decision also determined that Google monopolized the market for text ads, which appear at the top of search results and direct users to websites. These ads are sold through Google Ads (formerly AdWords), which generates more than $100 billion annually, accounting for about two-thirds of Google’s total revenue in 2020.

If the US Department of Justice does not insist on selling AdWords, it may need to take interoperability measures to ensure that the platform works seamlessly with other search engines. Another option under discussion is to require Google to sell or license its data to competitors such as Microsoft’s Bing or DuckDuckGo. Mehta’s ruling notes that Google’s contracts ensure that it collects far more user data than its competitors – 16 times more than its closest rival – which prevents other search engines from improving their results and competing effectively.

The European Digital Marketplace Act (DMA) already has a similar requirement, requiring Google to share some of its data with third-party search engines. Google claims that data sharing can raise concerns about user privacy, so the company makes certain information available only if certain criteria are met.

Requiring monopolists to share technology with competitors is not a new concept. In the first U.S. Department of Justice case against AT&T in 1956, the company was required to provide royalty-free licenses for its patents. In the antitrust case against Microsoft, the settlement forced the tech giant to make certain application programming interfaces (APIs) available to third parties free of charge.