U.S. authorities are urging a federal judge to dismantle Google to prevent the company from continuing to suppress competition via its leading search engine. This push follows a court ruling that deemed Google has held an abusive monopoly for the last ten years.

The Justice Department’s plea, outlined in a 23-page document submitted on Wednesday, suggests that the judge should mandate Google to divest its highly popular Chrome web browser. Furthermore, they propose measures that would restrict the Android smartphone software from favoring Google’s search engine over competitors.

These suggested sanctions reflect the gravity with which regulators under President Joe Biden view the situation, especially in light of a ruling from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who characterized Google as a monopolist in August. As the transition of power approaches with President-elect Donald Trump taking office next year, it’s unclear whether the new Justice Department leaders will maintain the same aggressive stance. Hearings regarding Google’s penalties are set to begin in Washington, D.C. in April, with Judge Mehta hoping to finalize his decision before Labor Day.

If Mehta accepts the Justice Department’s propositions, it is highly likely Google will contest these penalties, potentially dragging out a legal battle that has spanned over four years. In addition to proposing a spin-off of Chrome and other adjustments to Android software, the department is also seeking a prohibition on Google from engaging in billion-dollar agreements that secure its search engine as the default on devices such as Apple’s iPhone.

Moreover, regulators are advocating for Google to share user query data with its competitors to level the playing field and provide them with better opportunities to challenge the tech giant.

Should these regulations be enforced, they could significantly affect a business projected to earn more than $300 billion this year, which has been a substantial revenue source for Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc.

In the Justice Department’s summary, they asserted that “the playing field is not level because of Google’s conduct, and Google’s quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired. The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages.”

It’s worth noting that the Biden administration might reconsider its approach to breaking up Google, especially if Trump moves forward with appointing a successor to Jonathan Kanter, who currently leads the agency’s antitrust division.

Initially filed during the closing months of Trump’s first term, the case against Google saw Kanter oversee a significant trial that concluded with Mehta’s unfavorable ruling for Google. Collaborating with Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, Kanter adopted a tough stance toward major tech companies, resulting in other high-profile challenges against industry giants such as Apple and a slowdown in business agreements throughout the last four years.

Recently, Trump raised concerns that splitting up Google could dismantle the tech giant; however, he did not specify alternative penalties he would support. “What you can do without breaking it up is make sure it’s more fair,” he stated last month. Matt Gaetz, the former Republican congressman nominated by Trump for the next U.S. Attorney General, has previously advocated for the breakup of major tech corporations.

This latest legal filing granted Kanter and his team an opportunity to detail the interventions they believe are necessary for restoring competition in the search market. This comes six weeks after the Justice Department initially mentioned the possibility of a breakup as part of broader penalties.

Nonetheless, Kanter’s proposal is prompting debate regarding whether regulatory measures would extend beyond the matters discussed in last year’s trial and Judge Mehta’s ruling. Prohibiting the default search agreements, which Google pays over $26 billion annually to retain, aligns with one of the principal issues identified in Mehta’s ruling.

It remains uncertain if the judge will agree with the Justice Department’s perspective that Chrome must be separated from Google and that Android should be unlinked from the company’s suite of services.

Attempts to dismantle Google echo back to a similar case pursued against Microsoft approximately 25 years ago after a significant antitrust trial concluded that the software giant unlawfully leveraged its Windows operating system to hinder competition.

Yet, a subsequent appeals court overruled the order to divide Microsoft, a precedent that many legal experts believe might lead Judge Mehta to hesitate in taking a comparable route with Google’s situation.