In ref Chrome spin-off, Google's examination conveys to the judge 1) Bad actors attack Chrome & Google thinks potential buyers cannot defend it, 2) there are "a lot of things" Google does in security that a Chrome buyer won't get, 3) same thing would happen with Android.

Now, something very important to note here:

Per Adkins, Google's ability to defend Chrome comes from the fact that Chrome gives them "visibility of what happens in the web." That visibility is so vast that Chrome can alert users about malicious webs in ways other browsers can't. That was her way of conveying that only Google can protect Chrome.

What Adkins doesn't say (obviously) is that these cybersecurity capabilities hide behind a circular argument:

Google has a monopoly over search. The only reason why Chrome gives such a great visibility of what happens on the web is bc of that monopoly. Security teams can build better defenses based on that exact advantage: Google's scale, which it gained by breaking antitrust law.

So, in conclusion: