In a significant but balanced ruling, a U.S. judge has decided that Google will not be forced to sell off its Chrome browser or Android operating system, despite being found guilty of maintaining a monopoly in online search. Instead, Judge Amit Mehta ordered the tech giant to open up parts of its search infrastructure to rivals in an effort to level the competitive playing field.
The court rejected the U.S. Justice Department’s request for a structural breakup, which would have included divesting Chrome, Google’s widely used web browser. Rather than resorting to such a drastic measure, the judge mandated that Google share elements of its search index and user interaction data with qualified competitors. This requirement aims to provide rival companies with the tools they need to improve their own search engines and offer meaningful alternatives to Google’s dominance. According to the ruling, this data-sharing arrangement will remain in effect for up to six years.
Judge Mehta also addressed the growing influence of generative artificial intelligence platforms, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, noting that future innovation in AI-powered search could shift the dynamics of the market. To prevent Google from leveraging exclusive contracts to dominate the emerging AI space in the same way it did with traditional search, the judge placed restrictions on Google’s ability to use such deals moving forward. These rules are designed to keep the AI market open and competitive as it evolves.
While the judge did impose restrictions on how Google pays to secure default search placements on smartphones and web browsers, he did not go as far as banning those payments entirely. This means that deals between Google and companies like Apple—where Google pays billions annually to remain the default search engine—can continue under certain conditions, though not on an exclusive basis.
This case stems from a long-running antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. government, which argued that Google’s practices unfairly blocked competitors and preserved its monopoly. The court had already ruled in August 2024 that Google had illegally maintained its dominance in the search market by locking up distribution channels through expensive, exclusive agreements.
Much of the case revolved around Google’s multibillion-dollar contracts with Apple, Samsung, and other major smartphone manufacturers. These deals ensured that Google remained the default search engine on the majority of devices, limiting consumer choice and hindering competitors’ ability to gain visibility. According to estimates from Morgan Stanley, Google pays Apple alone over $20 billion annually to secure that default status.
The ruling represents the culmination of a five-year legal battle that pitted one of the world’s most powerful tech firms against U.S. antitrust regulators. Throughout the case, lawmakers and advocacy groups expressed growing concern over the concentration of power among Big Tech firms and the need to foster more competition in digital markets.
While the court ultimately stopped short of ordering any divestitures, the ruling still imposes significant changes to how Google can operate. For instance, Google will no longer be allowed to tie together its services—like the Chrome browser, Google Search, Google Assistant, and its Play Store—through exclusive deals with device manufacturers. This move is expected to make it easier for hardware makers to offer alternative apps and search engines without fear of losing access to key Google services.
Additionally, by requiring Google to share anonymized data with its rivals, the court aims to give competing search engines a chance to improve their performance. This is especially relevant for smaller players or new entrants who often struggle to match the scale and relevance of Google’s results due to limited access to user behavior data. However, advertising-related data was excluded from the sharing requirement, preserving some of Google’s competitive edge in that space.
Google responded to the ruling with measured concern, especially around user privacy. The company stated that it is reviewing the decision carefully and noted that any mandatory data sharing must be handled with great caution to avoid compromising users’ personal information. Privacy advocates and regulators will likely monitor this closely as the implementation phase begins.
Meanwhile, the decision came as a relief to Google’s partners, especially companies like Apple and Mozilla, which rely heavily on revenue-sharing agreements for default search placements. These companies can continue receiving payments from Google as long as the deals are not exclusive. This flexibility helped ease investor concerns, with Alphabet’s stock seeing a noticeable uptick following the announcement.
For Google’s competitors, particularly those operating in the search and AI space, the ruling opens a narrow but meaningful window of opportunity. While the company’s vast infrastructure and data advantage remain intact, the requirement to share parts of its search index and user interaction data may help challengers build better tools and services. Still, many believe that stronger remedies would have been necessary to significantly reduce Google’s market dominance.
Some advocacy groups have criticized the ruling for not going far enough. The American Economic Liberties Project described the decision as a missed opportunity, arguing that the judge failed to take bold action to rein in a company that has long used its dominance to shut out competitors. They called for an appeal to push for stricter remedies.
Others noted that the court’s reluctance to impose a breakup was driven in part by concerns about unintended consequences. Judge Mehta acknowledged that Google’s success is not solely the result of anti-competitive practices—it also reflects significant innovation, investment, and consumer satisfaction. A forced divestiture, he argued, could disrupt the tech ecosystem in unpredictable and potentially harmful ways.
The ruling also emphasized the rapidly changing landscape of internet search. The judge pointed to generative AI platforms as credible, emerging competitors to Google, suggesting that the market may naturally become more competitive over time. This perspective appeared to weigh heavily in the court’s decision to avoid dismantling the company.
Though this case has now reached a key milestone, Google’s legal battles are far from over. The company is facing another major antitrust trial focused on its digital advertising business. That case, also brought by the U.S. government, is expected to begin later this year and could result in additional restrictions or penalties depending on the outcome.
For now, however, the court’s decision reflects a careful balancing act. It seeks to correct anti-competitive behavior without destabilizing the broader digital economy. Whether that balance proves effective in promoting long-term competition remains to be seen, but the ruling undeniably sets new ground rules for how Google must conduct its search business moving forward.
