The Potential Impact of Forced Chrome Divestiture on Legal Research in Law Libraries: Some Thoughts

The Justice Department’s potential move to compel Google to sell its Chrome browser could significantly reshape the digital landscape, with direct and indirect consequences for the ability of law libraries to utilize computer-assisted legal research (CALR) to serve patrons effectively. This essay explores how such a divestiture might affect CALR resources, access, and functionality, while also considering implications for law libraries’ broader operational frameworks.

1. Changes in Browser Compatibility with CALR Platforms

Most computer-assisted legal research tools, such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, and Bloomberg Law, are optimized for popular web browsers, including Chrome. Google Chrome’s dominance in the browser market (approximately 60% as of recent statistics) has led developers to prioritize compatibility with Chrome over other browsers. If Chrome’s ownership changes, there is a possibility that its development priorities, security protocols, or support for certain legal research tools could shift. This could necessitate costly adjustments by CALR providers and law libraries.

For instance:

• Vendor Adaptations: CALR providers may need to test and optimize their platforms for other browsers, potentially increasing subscription costs for libraries.
• User Training: Librarians and patrons accustomed to Chrome may face a learning curve if they must migrate to less familiar browsers, impacting the efficiency of legal research.

2. Potential Disruption to Browser Integration Features

Modern CALR tools rely heavily on seamless integration with browsers for functionalities such as:

• Bookmarking and Annotation: Tools like Westlaw Edge and Lexis+ allow users to save cases, statutes, and notes directly from browser extensions.
• Search Customization: Chrome-specific extensions and settings enhance the precision of legal queries.

A divestiture might disrupt these features if new owners alter Chrome’s architecture or limit third-party integrations, forcing CALR providers to reevaluate their technical compatibility strategies.

3. Impact on Access and Equity

Law libraries serve diverse patrons, from attorneys to self-represented litigants. Any disruptions to Chrome’s reliability or availability could disproportionately affect those without the resources to adapt quickly. For example:

• Free Legal Research Platforms: Tools like Google Scholar, widely used for free access to case law, may face uncertainty if Chrome’s functionality changes under new ownership.
• Public Access Points: Many law libraries rely on public computer terminals configured for Chrome. Switching to alternative browsers may require costly upgrades, straining budgets.

4. Privacy and Security Concerns

Google’s integration of Chrome with other services, such as Gmail and Google Drive, has streamlined workflows for many legal professionals and researchers. However, Chrome’s new ownership might lead to changes in privacy policies or security measures, raising concerns about:

• Data Protection: Legal researchers often handle sensitive client data, and diminished browser security could expose them to cyber risks.
• Compliance Issues: Law libraries would need to ensure that any new browser or system aligns with privacy regulations like CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act) or GDPR (General Data Production Regulation-EU) which could involve significant administrative and technical adjustments.

5. Innovation and Competition

On the positive side, forcing Google to divest Chrome might encourage greater competition in the browser market. For law libraries, this could result in:

• Broader Optimization: Increased competition might push CALR providers to make their tools compatible with a wider range of browsers, reducing dependence on a single platform.
• Cost Reductions: In the long term, competition could drive down prices for digital tools, benefiting law libraries operating on tight budgets.

6. Strategic Adjustments for Law Libraries

To mitigate potential disruptions, law libraries could take proactive measures:

• Diverse Browser Support: Ensure CALR platforms are functional on multiple browsers, preparing for a transition away from Chrome if necessary.
• Staff Training: Equip librarians with skills to assist patrons using alternative browsers or navigating new research interfaces.
• Vendor Communication: Engage with CALR providers to understand their contingency plans for any shifts in browser compatibility.

Conclusion

While the Justice Department’s proposed divestiture of Chrome aims to reduce market monopolization, its ripple effects could present challenges and opportunities for law libraries. The transition could disrupt CALR workflows, increase operational costs, and necessitate significant adjustments to ensure equitable access to legal research resources. However, it could also spur innovation and competition, potentially benefiting law libraries and their patrons in the long term. By staying adaptable and engaged with both patrons and vendors, law libraries can navigate this shifting technological landscape effectively.