Google won't have to sell its Chrome browser, according to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta — the same judge who ruled last year that Google holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising.
Instead of breaking up the company, Judge Mehta barred Google from signing exclusive search distribution deals and required it to share some search data with rivals, though he allowed ongoing payments like its $20B Safari deal with Apple to continue.
Quick Backstory: Several years ago, the U.S. Justice Department brought two cases against Google.
- The first was filed in 2020 and targeted the company’s dominance in online search and search advertising, accusing it of using default agreements and other exclusionary tactics to maintain its monopoly. That's the case that Judge Mehta ruled on in August 2024, declaring Google a monopoly in those areas, and just now issued remedies barring exclusive search deals and requiring Google to share certain data with rivals. More details on that below.
- The second DOJ case was filed in January 2023 and targets Google’s digital advertising technology business (the “ad tech stack”), alleging that Google monopolized the tools publishers and advertisers use to buy and sell ads, and asking the court to consider forcing Google to divest parts of that business. This case is being heard by a different judge, Leonie Brinkema and is still ongoing. Google is scheduled to go to trial later this month to determine remedies for this case, so stay tuned.
Back to Judge Mehta's new ruling on the first case:
- Google won't have to divest its Chrome browser, much to the dismay of Perplexity, OpenAI, and other hungry buyers.
- Google can also keep its Android operating system and won't have to divest that either.
- Google is barred from entering into exclusive contracts with mobile device makers and other software providers, however, it can continue making $20B annual payments to Apple to remain Safari's default search engine, as long as the deal isn't exclusive.
- Google has to share data with certain rivals to open up competition in online search. That includes a snapshot of its search index and some user-interaction data, like queries and clicks, so competitors can improve the quality of their own search results. This one is 100% going to get challenged by Google, as it should, because it doesn't make much sense to force Google to share the recipe to its secret sauce with competitors. How does that do more to curb monopoly power than simply breaking up the company? Google already said in a blog post that it was worried the data sharing requirement “will impact our users and their privacy, and we’re reviewing the decision closely.”
Mehta wrote in his ruling, “The money flowing into this space, and how quickly it has arrived, is astonishing.” — adding that currently AI companies are already better placed to compete with Google than any search engine has been in decades.
Google plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on the ruling, as the case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. A lot can change in the market in the meantime, which would impact the merits of the case.
