Google has avoided being forced to sell its Chrome web browser but will have to loosen its grip on online search after a landmark ruling by a US federal judge.
District Judge Amit Mehta issued the decision on Tuesday, concluding a years-long antitrust battle that focused on Google’s dominance in search and its contracts with device makers to secure default status.
The US Department of Justice had pushed for sweeping measures, including forcing Google to divest its Chrome browser. Judge Mehta, however, described such a move as “a poor fit for this case,” opting instead to prohibit Google from entering exclusive contracts that favor its search engine and requiring it to share key search data with rivals.
The ruling follows Mehta’s earlier finding that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly in online search by paying billions of dollars to companies such as Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla to make Google the default option. Court documents revealed Google spent more than $26 billion on such deals in 2021 alone.
Under the new order, Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini AI app can no longer be tied to exclusive distribution agreements. Phone makers and browser developers will now be free to preload or promote alternative search engines and AI assistants. Google, however, may continue to pay partners for default placement, though deals must be renegotiated annually.
Google welcomed the outcome, framing it as validation of its stance that the search market remains highly competitive, particularly with the rise of artificial intelligence. “Today’s decision recognizes how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information,” the company said in a statement.
The ruling sparked a positive reaction from investors, with Alphabet — Google’s parent company — seeing its shares rise more than 8 percent in after-hours trading. Analysts said the decision was less severe than anticipated, providing relief to major tech firms that partner with Google. “Apple also gets a nice win because the ruling forces Google to renegotiate the search deal annually,” noted Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management.
Still, not everyone was satisfied. Competitors such as DuckDuckGo argued the remedies fell short. “The order fails to force the changes necessary to address Google’s illegal behavior. As a result, consumers will continue to suffer,” said Gabriel Weinberg, the company’s founder and CEO.
The Justice Department also signaled it may push for tougher measures. Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater wrote on X that officials were “weighing our options and thinking through whether the ordered relief goes far enough.”
The case marks a significant moment in efforts to rein in Big Tech but is unlikely to be Google’s last courtroom battle. Later this month, the company faces another trial over allegations it maintains illegal monopolies in online advertising technology — a business that generates tens of billions in revenue annually.
