Google can keep its Chrome browser, but it can no longer have exclusive search deals and must share its search data with competitors. That’s the ruling from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in the Google antitrust trial.
Why we care. This is a hit to Google’s core business – though it could have been worse had Google been forced to sell Chrome, which provides invaluable user data that’s used for advertising and ranking. Exclusive contracts that made Google the default search engine (e.g., paying Apple $20 billion a year) on browsers and smartphones helped cement its search monopoly.
The ruling. Google can no longer enter into exclusive contracts for Search, Chrome, Assistant, or Gemini products. Regarding Chrome:
“Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment. Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints.”
Regarding search deals:
“Google will be barred from entering or maintaining any exclusive contract relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app. Google shall not enter or maintain any agreement that
(1) conditions the licensing of the Play Store or any other Google application on the distribution, preloading, or placement of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or the Gemini app anywhere on a device;
(2) conditions the receipt of revenue share payments for the placement of one Google application (e.g., Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or the Gemini app) on the placement of another such application;
(3) conditions the receipt of revenue share payments on maintaining Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or the Gemini app on any device, browser, orsearch access point for more than one year; or
(4) prohibits any partner from simultaneously distributing any other GSE, browser, or GenAI product search access point for more than one year; or (4) prohibits any partner from simultaneously distributing any other GSE, browser, or GenAI product.”
Regarding sharing data:
“Google will have to make available to Qualified Competitors certain search index and user-interaction data, though not ads data, as such sharing will deny Google the fruits of its exclusionary acts and promote competition.”
“Google will not be required to share granular, query-level data with advertisers or provide them with more access to such data. Nor will it have to restore an ‘exact match’ keyword bidding option.”
Regarding ad auctions:
“Google will be compelled to publicly disclose material changes it makes to its ad auctions to promote greater transparency in search text ads pricing and to prevent Google from increasing prices by secretly fine-tuning its ad auctions.”
Catch up quick. The DOJ sued in 2020, arguing Google illegally maintained its dominance.
On Aug. 5. 2024, following a 10-week trial, Mehta ruled that Google violated antitrust law by holding an illegal monopoly in internet search.
In April 2025, the DOJ unveiled its proposed remedies, which included Chrome divestiture as well as distribution, data, and advertising remedies.
What’s next. Google plans to appeal. It could be years before we see any of these penalties enforced.
Reaction. DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg wrote on X:
“We do not believe the remedies ordered by the court will force the changes necessary to adequately address Google’s illegal behavior. Google will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search. As a result, consumers will continue to suffer. We believe Congress should now step in to swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field.”
The ruling. U.S. vs. Google memorandum opinion (PDF)