LONDON — Britain’s competition regulator is preparing remedies aimed at solving competition issues in the multibillion-pound cloud computing industry.

The Competition and Markets Authority is set to unveil its provisional decision detailing “behavioral” remedies addressing anti-competitive practices in the sector following a months-long investigation into the market, two sources familiar with the matter told CNBC.

The sources, who preferred to remain anonymous given the investigation’s sensitive nature, said that the cloud market remedies could be announced within the next two weeks. The regulator previously set itself a deadline of November to December 2024 to publish its provisional decision.

A CMA spokesperson declined to comment on the timing of its provisional decision when asked by CNBC.

Cloud infrastructure services is a market that’s dominated by U.S. technology giants Amazon and Microsoft. Amazon is the largest player in the market, offering cloud services via its Amazon Web Services (AWS) arm. Microsoft is the second-largest provider, selling cloud products under its Microsoft Azure unit.

The CMA probe traces its history back to 2022, when U.K. telecoms regulator Ofcom kicked off a market study examining the dominance of cloud giants Amazon, Microsoft and Google. Ofcom subsequently referred its cloud review to the CMA to address competition issues in the market.

The watchdog said in a working paper in June that it was “at an early stage” of considering potential remedies.

Solutions floated at the time included imposing price controls restricting the level of egress fees, lowering technical barriers to switching cloud providers, and banning agreements encouraging firms to commit more spend in return for discounts.

One contentious measure the regulator said it was considering was requiring Microsoft to apply the same pricing for its productivity software products regardless of which cloud they’re hosted on — a move that would have a significant impact on Microsoft’s pricing structures.

CMA Chief Executive Sarah Cardell is set to hold a speech on Thursday at Chatham House, a U.K. policy institute. In an interview with the Financial Times, she defended the regulator’s track record on competition enforcement amid criticisms from Prime Minister Keir Starmer that the agency was holding back growth.

She is expected to outline plans for a review in 2025 into whether the CMA should more frequently use behavioral remedies when approving deals, the FT reported.

Bitcoin breached the $95,000 level for the first time Wednesday evening as investors continued pricing in a second Donald Trump presidency.

The price of the flagship cryptocurrency was last higher by more than 3% at $97,646.68, according to Coin Metrics. Earlier, it rose as high as $97,788.00.

Shares of MicroStrategy, a bitcoin proxy, gained 3% in extended trading. Mining stocks rose as well, with Mara Holdings up 4%.

Bitcoin has been regularly hitting fresh records this month on hopes that Trump will usher in a golden age of crypto, which would include more supportive regulation for the industry and a potential national strategic bitcoin reserve or stockpile.

It is widely expected to reach $100,000 this year and double by the end of 2025.

“Bitcoin’s price continues to be driven by a number of factors including improved liquidity conditions, increased institutional adoption, and a regulatory environment that has flipped from a headwind to a tailwind,” said Sam Callahan, an analyst at Swan Bitcoin.

Another Trump term also implies larger budget deficits, potentially more inflation and changes to the international role of the dollar – all things that would have a positive impact on the price of bitcoin.

Bitcoin has gained more than 127% in 2024.

The Department of Justice is calling for Google to divest its Chrome browser, following a ruling in August that the company holds a monopoly in the search market.

Chrome, which Google launched in 2008, provides the search giant with data it then uses for targeting ads. The DOJ said in a filing on Wednesday that forcing the company to get rid of Chrome would create a more equal playing field for search competitors.

“To remedy these harms, the [Initial Proposed Final Judgment] requires Google to divest Chrome, which will permanently stop Google’s control of this critical search access point and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet,” the 23-page filing reads.

Additionally, the DOJ said that Google be prevented from entering into exclusionary agreements with third parties like Apple and Samsung. The DOJ also said that Google be prohibited from giving its search service preference within its other products.

The DOJ also said that remedies should prevent Google from eliminating “emerging competitive threats through acquisitions, minority investments, or partnerships.” The DOJ said that the “proposed remedies run for a period of 10 years.” The filing also says the search company should be required to provide a technical committee with a monthly report outlining any changes to its search text ads auction.

“The proposed remedies are designed to end Google’s unlawful practices and open up the market for rivals and new entrants to emerge,” the filing reads.

Search advertising accounted for $49.4 billion in revenue in parent company Alphabet’s third quarter, representing three-quarters of total ad sales in the period.

The DOJ’s request represents the agency’s most aggressive attempt to break up a tech company since its antitrust case against Microsoft, which reached a settlement in 2001.

In addition to its call for Google to divest Chrome, the DOJ said forcing the search company to divest its Android mobile operating system would also aid in restoring competition, “but Plaintiffs recognize that such divestiture may draw significant objections from Google or other market participants.”

Instead, the DOJ suggested that the other remedies should be enough to “blunt Google’s ability to use its control of the Android ecosystem to favor its general search services,” and if they “ultimately fail to achieve the high standards for meaningful relief in these critical markets, the Court could require return to” the Android divestiture suggestion.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google holds a monopoly in the search market. The ruling came after the government in 2020 filed its landmark case, alleging that Google controlled the general search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance. The court found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which outlaws monopolies.

Last month, the DOJ indicated it was considering a breakup of Google businesses, including potentially breaking up its Chrome, Play or Android divisions. 

Additionally, the DOJ suggested limiting or prohibiting default agreements and “other revenue-sharing arrangements related to search and search-related products.” That would include Google’s search arrangements with Apple on the iPhone and Samsung on its mobiles devices, deals that cost the company billions of dollars a year in payouts.

Google has said it will appeal the monopoly ruling, which would draw out any final remedy decisions.

However, the most likely outcome, according to some legal experts, is that the court will ask Google to do away with certain exclusive agreements, like its deal with Apple. While a breakup is an unlikely outcome, the experts said, the court may ask Google to make it easier for users to access other search engines.

WATCH: What DOJ’s focus on Google means for the tech company