Honestly, I see no difference between that scenario and this. If anything, Google has been a lot more guilty than for just monopolizing on a browser here.
Chrome wasn't seemingly to target anyone. Google generally makes more money if people use the internet more, so spending to make browsers better has some obvious benefits.
One example among the many things the court found they did was to tell OEMs that they wouldn't license Windows to them if they _also_ included Netscape preinstalled in their computers.
The stated purpose, from internal emails, was to prevent Java from becoming the de-facto API for writing applications, which at the time was win32. This was a gigantic barrier of entry that protected Windows' monopoly and they did all those shady things to keep it raised.
> The Sherman Act broadly prohibits (1) anticompetitive agreements and (2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market.
You don’t have to get very abstract at all to see how Google may violating it. Microsoft lost their antitrust case in regards to how they distributed Internet Explorer, another free product.
It looks like they also make other browsers pay for ads while they post their own ads for "Google's Official Browser" at no cost:
https://i.imgur.com/iwymopx.png
Sometimes it's in a new top bar on the page but cannot remember if that's only on Gmail.
Damn, that is some duplicitous ad copy, especially in light of recent events.
Every time I see that pop up, I think “does it block pop ups like this?”