Google can keep Chrome, but exclusive search deals must end

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. Google essentially pays no penalty for being an illegal monopoly. This seems like a small hit to Google’s core business – it would have been much worse for Google had it been forced to sell Chrome, which provides invaluable user data that Google uses for advertising and indexing, crawling, retrieval, and ranking. As for the exclusive contracts that made Google the default search engine (e.g., paying Apple $20 billion a year) on browsers and smartphones and helped cement its search monopoly? Apparently, those deals are OK after all?

The ruling. 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, or search 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.

Google’s response. Google released a statement on the ruling:

Earlier today a U.S. court overseeing the Department of Justice’s lawsuit over how we distribute Search issued a decision on next steps.

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. This underlines what we’ve been saying since this case was filed in 2020: Competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want. That’s why we disagree so strongly with the Court’s initial decision in August 2024 on liability.

Now the Court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share Search data with rivals. We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we’re reviewing the decision closely. The Court did recognize that divesting Chrome and Android would have gone beyond the case’s focus on search distribution, and would have harmed consumers and our partners.

As always, we’re continuing to focus on what matters — building innovative products that people choose and love.

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)