Could Ecosia Take Stewardship of Chrome Amid Antitrust Case?
Ecosia has submitted an audacious proposal to manage Google's Chrome browser under a decade-long "stewardship" arrangement, positioning itself as an alternative to the Department of Justice's demand for a forced sale.
The Berlin-based non-profit search engine sent its unsolicited offer to both Google and US Judge Amit Mehta, who is expected to rule this month on remedies following his landmark 2024 decision that Google operates an illegal monopoly in internet search and advertising.
Climate focus amid billion-dollar valuations
Christian Kroll, CEO of Ecosia, acknowledges the unconventional nature of his proposal whilst defending its feasibility.
"It's not absurd, right?" The request for stewardship would see his company assume control of approximately 60% of Chrome's revenue without paying the hundreds of billions an auction might command.
Ecosia estimates Chrome could generate US$1tn over the next decade, with Kroll suggesting an auction price "in the hundreds of billions".
The proposal promises to channel those revenues into climate initiatives aligned with Ecosia's core mission.
Since its 2009 founding, the non-profit has donated millions monthly to environmental projects across more than 35 countries, working with local communities and NGOs on conservation efforts.
Under the Chrome stewardship plan, Ecosia would fund specific projects including rainforest protection, global tree-planting programmes, agroforestry initiatives, pollution litigation and green AI technology investments.
Maintaining Google ties
The remaining 40% of revenues – approximately US$400 billion based on Ecosia's projections – would flow to Google, which would retain intellectual property ownership of Chrome.
Google could even continue as the default search engine under the arrangement, with stewardship potentially transferring to another entity after the ten-year term.
Christian suggests that his organisations existing commercial relationships could help to facilitate such a transition.
"We would be happy to manage Chrome for them," he says, noting Ecosia's current revenue-sharing partnership with Google and its experience operating a browser built on the Chromium open-source engine that underpins Chrome.
The proposal includes maintaining employment for Chrome's existing workforce, addressing potential concerns about job losses under alternative divestiture scenarios.
Industry context and alternatives
Ecosia's intervention comes as tech giants queue to acquire Chrome should divestiture proceed.
Both OpenAI and Perplexity have expressed interest, with Perplexity making an unsolicited US$34.5bn cash offer last week that analysts widely dismissed as insufficient.
Brad Erickson, Analyst at RBC, suggests that "OpenAI potentially would be prepared to pay significantly more for it" than Perplexity's bid.
Such conventional sales would simply relocate Chrome's substantial market power and revenues within the existing tech ecosystem, Kroll argues.
Broader regulatory implications
The stewardship model represents an attempt to influence judicial thinking beyond traditional divestiture options of outright sales or corporate spin-offs.
"We hold a track record of making impossible things possible," Christian explains, hoping to prompt consideration of novel approaches to addressing big tech monopolies.
His broader objective centres on preventing Chrome's power and billions from remaining "in the pockets of big tech" through conventional ownership transfers.
While Google has not agreed to divest Chrome and vowed to appeal the original monopoly ruling, the stewardship proposal offers a creative alternative that could reshape discussions around tech regulation remedies.
Whether Judge Mehta will entertain such an unconventional solution remains to be seen, but Ecosia's gambit has certainly introduced a new dimension to the Chrome divestiture debate.
