Google Avoids Breakup in Landmark US Antitrust Case: Chrome, AI, and Search Deals in Focus
In a major legal and political development, Google has secured a significant victory in the United States courts. A district court in Washington, D.C., has ruled against the U.S. government’s ambitious proposal to break up the tech giant as part of remedies in a landmark search antitrust case. The ruling, delivered on September 2 by Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, rejected the Justice Department’s call for Google to spin out its Chrome web browser, among other drastic measures that were suggested to address what the government described as Google’s illegal monopoly of the online search market.
This case, which has been under close watch for years, stems from the government’s efforts to rein in Big Tech and create a more equal playing field in the search engine sector. The decision not only protects Google’s hold over its flagship products like Chrome and Android but also signals a potential shift in how courts may treat tech antitrust cases in an era increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence and new digital markets.
Background to the Antitrust Case
Last year, the same federal court had ruled that Google did indeed hold an illegal monopoly in online search. That ruling was a landmark moment, the first major victory in decades for regulators trying to challenge the dominance of a U.S. technology company. Once that decision was handed down, the case moved into what is known as the remedies phase. Here, Judge Mehta heard arguments from both sides over several weeks on how best to correct Google’s anti-competitive practices without causing disruption to consumers and the broader digital ecosystem.
The remedies trial lasted for roughly 15 days in May of this year. It was notable not only for the volume of testimony but also for the heavyweight witnesses who took the stand. Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai personally testified, defending the company’s business practices. Eddy Cue, a senior Apple executive, offered insights into Google’s deals with Apple, while representatives from OpenAI, Perplexity, Mozilla, and other stakeholders also appeared.
For Google, the stakes could not have been higher. The Justice Department’s proposals included breaking off Chrome, limiting Google’s exclusive search agreements with companies like Apple and Samsung, and even a potential divestiture of Android if compliance was not achieved.
The Court’s Decision
Judge Mehta’s 230-page ruling ultimately sided with Google on most of the most extreme measures proposed by the Department of Justice. While the court acknowledged the reality of Google’s market power, it rejected the idea that drastic structural remedies like breaking up Chrome or Android were necessary to address the issues at hand.
The ruling effectively lifts a cloud that had been hanging over Google for more than a year, particularly over its AI ambitions in online search. For Silicon Valley as a whole, the outcome has been seen as an indicator that under the Trump administration, the regulatory climate may be more business-friendly compared to the stricter approach of previous administrations.
U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi still emphasized the importance of the decision, saying, “This decision marks an important step forward in the Department of Justice’s ongoing fight to protect American consumers. Under President Trump’s leadership, we will continue our legal efforts to hold companies accountable for monopolistic practices.”
Google, for its part, was cautious in its response. Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president of Regulatory Affairs, said the company was still reviewing the decision closely, adding: “We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy.”
Breaking Off Chrome and Android ‘Goes Too Far’
Perhaps the most closely watched element of the trial was the DOJ’s call for Google to divest Chrome. The proposal gained significant attention because Chrome is the world’s most popular browser, with more than 60 percent market share, and is also tied directly to how Google’s search engine dominates user traffic.
The DOJ argued that Chrome’s dominance cemented Google’s search monopoly, and that divesting it would open opportunities for other competitors. Some companies, including OpenAI and Yahoo, had even expressed interest in acquiring Chrome. Perplexity, a rising AI-powered search startup, had gone as far as to make an unsolicited $34.5 billion bid for the browser.
But Judge Mehta firmly rejected the idea. He concluded that divesting Chrome would be a “poor fit for this case,” citing legal precedents where such extreme remedies were only used when all other measures were inadequate. The court also pointed out that Chrome is deeply integrated into Google’s infrastructure, from engineering personnel to back-end systems. Stripping Chrome from Google would not only disrupt the product but also potentially degrade it for users worldwide, most of whom live outside the U.S.
The proposal to divest Android under certain conditions was similarly struck down. Judge Mehta concluded that both remedies would create more harm than good, resulting in consumer welfare losses, product quality issues, and broader market instability.
Ban on Search Deals Could Hurt Distributors
Another core argument presented by the DOJ was that Google should be banned from entering exclusive search deals with smartphone makers and browser developers. These deals, such as the reported $20 billion annual payment to Apple to keep Google Search as the default on iPhones, were highlighted as a major driver of Google’s monopoly.
While the court recognized that such deals had helped Google cement its power, it ultimately decided against banning them. Judge Mehta reasoned that such a ban could ironically harm competition and consumers. Distributors like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla rely on the revenue generated from these deals, and banning them could lead to higher prices, less innovation, or reduced product offerings.
Instead, the court accepted parts of Google’s counter-offer, which proposed dropping exclusivity clauses from these deals while allowing rivals to strike similar agreements if they could afford them. It also required Google to allow browser developers to reset the default search engine each year across devices, giving users more choice.
The Role of AI in Shaping the Case
Artificial intelligence played a surprisingly central role in this trial. The original antitrust lawsuit was filed in 2020, well before the AI boom led by OpenAI’s ChatGPT. By the time of the remedies phase in 2024, AI had become a dominant force in the tech sector, reshaping how people search for and consume information.
Apple’s Eddy Cue testified that Safari’s search traffic had declined for the first time in 22 years, directly linking it to the rise of AI chatbots. Google itself argued that this showed competition in search was alive and well, as AI was shifting user behavior.
The DOJ countered by warning that Google could apply the same anti-competitive tactics to AI as it did with search. Indeed, reports surfaced that Google was paying Samsung large sums to preinstall its Gemini AI chatbot on devices.
Judge Mehta acknowledged the role of AI but concluded that AI chatbots had not eliminated the need for traditional search engines. At the same time, the court prohibited Google from securing exclusivity for its generative AI products on browsers or devices, specifically barring exclusive distribution deals with Apple for Google’s AI services.
Data Sharing to Level the Playing Field
While rejecting the most severe remedies, the court did adopt a few measures aimed at closing the quality gap between Google and its rivals. Chief among these was requiring Google to share portions of its search index data with competitors at marginal cost. This would help smaller players improve their results by accessing a broader pool of information.
Judge Mehta stressed that this requirement was limited to databases of websites and their content that Google crawls from the open web. Proprietary data from partnerships or other sources would not need to be shared.
The ruling also ordered Google to provide search and search text ad syndication services under five-year licenses to help rivals deliver better-quality results and ads.
Final Thoughts
The court’s ruling represents a delicate balancing act. On one hand, it acknowledges Google’s immense power and imposes measures to curb its anti-competitive behavior. On the other, it avoids drastic remedies that could destabilize products relied upon by billions of users worldwide.
For Google, this is a clear victory. The company retains control over Chrome, Android, and its lucrative search deals, while facing only moderate requirements to share data and loosen exclusivity clauses. For regulators, however, the decision is both a setback and a sign of the limits of antitrust law in an era where technology evolves faster than legal frameworks.
With AI reshaping search and information discovery, this case may just be the first chapter in a much larger battle over how to regulate the digital economy.
Click Here to subscribe to our newsletters and get the latest updates directly to your inbox.