Google scored a much-needed win Tuesday when a federal judge ruled the tech giant could hold on to its Chrome browser, rejecting the wide-ranging penalties proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The government had asked U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to order Google to sell the browser, alongside numerous other remedies, after he found last August that the company had an illegal monopoly over online search.
Mehta ultimately opted against a breakup, calling it a “poor fit for this case” and suggesting the DOJ had “overreached” in his lengthy 230-page opinion.
But he still imposed some restraints on Google, barring the company from entering exclusive agreements prioritizing its products and requiring it to share some data and provide syndication services to competitors.
Here’s what to know about the decision:
Google secures favorable ruling after tough year
The ruling is largely favorable for Google after a particularly tough year, during which the search giant lost two antitrust cases and grappled with the prospect of multiple divestitures.
Shortly after Mehta ruled last August that Google had an illegal monopoly over search, the company headed to trial to fend off another DOJ lawsuit in which it was accused of monopolizing advertising technology.
In April, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google had illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly over two separate markets in the ad tech space, marking another blow to the tech giant’s empire.
The DOJ has sought a breakup in this second case as well, pushing for a forced divestiture of two of Google’s advertising products. As a result, Tuesday’s decision would appear to be a welcome reprieve.
“On the whole, compared to what could have happened yesterday, they had a good day,” said William Kovacic, a George Washington University law professor and former chair of the Federal Trade Commission.
However, he added, “Maybe it’s a day for beer instead of champagne — there’s a number of rivers for them to cross yet.”
But Google has some reservations about the decision
Google touted the court’s decision Tuesday to opt against a breakup, but it’s not entirely content with the ruling.
The company has long vowed to appeal the underlying monopoly finding in the search case once the remedies phase is completed, and its plans appear unchanged.
“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,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in a statement.
“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,” she continued. “That’s why we disagree so strongly with the Court’s initial decision in August 2024 on liability.”
Mehta’s decision and the remedies phase of the case centered heavily on artificial intelligence (AI), even though the technology played little role in the initial trial.
The DOJ argued its wide-ranging remedies, including the proposed breakup, were necessary because Google’s dominance over search could give it a leg up in the AI race. Meanwhile, Google suggested this underscored the growing competition the company faces from emerging AI rivals, such as OpenAI, xAI and DeepSeek.
The issue was top of mind for Mehta as well, who said in Tuesday’s decision that the emergence of generative AI “changed the course of this case.”
Google separately took issue with the remedies ordered by the judge. While Google will still be allowed to pay firms to place or preload its search engine, browser or AI chatbot, Mehta barred the company from entering into exclusive agreements to prioritize these products.
He also required the tech giant to make certain search index and user interaction data and search syndication services available to competitors.
“We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we’re reviewing the decision closely,” Mulholland said.
DOJ claims wins, weighs future options
The Justice Department, for its part, is taking the win. Gail Slater, the head of the DOJ’s antitrust division, called the decision a “major win for the American people,” even as she said the agency is considering its next steps.
“While the court didn’t order every form of relief the United States sought, it ordered far more significant remedies than Google believed appropriate,” Slater wrote in a post on the social platform X.
“Make no mistake: the relief ordered so far is a major win for the American people,” she added. “The Department will be considering its options and weighing next steps regarding seeking additional relief.”
Slater, like Google and Mehta, also framed the decision in the context of the AI race.
“The court gave a leg up to the United States in the global AI race, preventing Google from slowing down AI innovation with the same anticompetitive playbook it used to freeze search competition,” she said.
The ruling comes at a tumultuous time for Slater’s division. Two top antitrust officials were fired from the agency in late July amid internal disagreements over the handling of the merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks.
The tensions have raised questions about the Trump administration’s approach to antitrust enforcement, which has been a rare area of continuity with the Biden administration amid growing scrutiny of Big Tech firms.
Antitrust advocates decry ruling as ‘slap on the wrist’
Not everyone is cheering the decision. Antitrust advocates have argued Mehta’s ruling amounts to a “slap on the wrist” for the search giant.
Barry Lynn, executive director of the Open Markets Institute, a left-leaning anti-monopoly think tank, argued the judge’s remedies do “nothing to right these wrongs” and instead tells Google and other monopolists that “even the most egregious violation of law will be met with a slap on the wrist.”
“After making the legally sound and morally courageous decision to find Google liable for illegal monopolistic practices, Judge Mehta apparently decided that actually enforcing the law was more than he could stomach,” Lynn said in a statement.
The American Economic Liberties Project called on the DOJ and the states that sued alongside it to appeal the decision.
“You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank-you note for the loot,” Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the anti-monopoly nonprofit, said in a statement.
“Similarly, you don’t find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly,” she continued. “This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter-century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed.”
Several Democratic lawmakers also suggested Mehta’s ruling falls short.
Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Pat Ryan (N.Y.) and Angie Craig (Minn.), who chair the Monopoly Busters Caucus, argued the decision allows the company to remain a monopoly, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said the remedies “fail to hold Google accountable for breaking the law.”
Apple holds on to lucrative search deal
A surprising winner from the Google decision is Apple. The iPhone-maker stands to benefit by keeping hold of its multibillion-dollar deal with Google to make the search engine the default on its Safari web browser.
The search giant paid Apple $20 billion in 2022 alone, according to Bloomberg. In 2020, this revenue accounted for 17.5 percent of Apple’s operating income.
“This is a monster win for Cupertino and for Google it’s a home run ruling that removes a huge overhang on the stock,” Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives said in a note late Tuesday.
“While in theory Google is barred from ‘exclusive deals’ for search, this now lays the groundwork for Apple to continue its deal and ultimately likely double down on more AI related partnership with Google Gemini down the road,” he added.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified earlier this year that the company was hoping to strike a deal with Apple to integrate Gemini AI on its devices. Ives suggested Tuesday’s ruling could “green light” a bigger partnership between the two tech giants.
Apple did not respond to a request for comment.
