Key Points
- Google will not be forced to sell Chrome or Android despite the monopoly ruling.
- Company barred from exclusive default search deals and must share search data with rivals.
- Chrome dominates 60% of browsers; Google Search handles 90% of global queries.
WASHINGTON: In a closely watched antitrust showdown, a U.S. federal judge stopped short of dismantling Google’s empire, international media reported Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled on Tuesday that the tech giant will not be forced to sell its popular Chrome browser or Android operating system, even though it was found guilty of illegally monopolising online search. Sparing Google’s core platforms from breakup, the ruling still imposed sweeping restrictions on how it does business.
What the Judge Decided
Judge Mehta rejected the U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) push for a drastic structural remedy, calling the idea of forcing Google to divest Chrome or Android “incredibly messy” and potentially damaging for consumers worldwide.
“Requiring the sale of Chrome or Android would create immense disruption without a guarantee of more competition,” Mehta wrote in his 89-page decision, excerpts of which were cited in multiple media outlets.
Instead, he ordered behavioural remedies designed to restore competition:
- Google can no longer strike exclusive default agreements with smartphone makers, web browsers, or voice assistants.
- The company must share valuable search data and indexing tools with rivals like Microsoft’s Bing, DuckDuckGo, OpenAI, and Perplexity.
- Revenue-sharing deals with Apple and other partners can continue, but must be renegotiated annually and without exclusivity clauses.
Global Stakes
The decision carries weight far beyond U.S. borders. Chrome commands over 60 per cent of global browser traffic, and Google’s search engine handles more than 90 per cent of worldwide queries. For users outside America, the remedies could reshape how search and artificial intelligence assistants appear on devices.
Analysts note that the mandated data-sharing requirements could give smaller players a chance to build competitive AI-driven search tools, potentially diversifying options for billions of internet users suited to their respective native needs.
“This is a huge opening for search competitors,” the Financial Times, quoted a Washington-based antitrust lawyer, as saying. “If implemented fully, it could ripple across Europe, Asia, and Africa, where reliance on Google is even higher than in the United States.”
Mixed Reactions
Investors welcomed the outcome, with Alphabet’s stock jumping 7 per cent and Apple’s rising nearly 3 per cent after the ruling. But consumer advocates were far less enthusiastic.
“This decision leaves Google’s monopoly largely intact,” said Sarah Miller of the American Economic Liberties Project. “It doesn’t do enough to dismantle the company’s entrenched dominance.”
The DOJ, disappointed by the limited remedies, is weighing an appeal that could eventually bring the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Bigger Picture
The ruling is the latest chapter in the landmark case United States v. Google LLC, filed in 2020 and dubbed the “trial of the century” for Big Tech. In 2024, Judge Mehta found Google guilty of illegally maintaining its monopoly in general search through multi-billion-dollar default contracts with companies like Apple and Samsung.
Beyond search, Google faces separate antitrust battles, most notably over its advertising technology business, with another trial on remedies expected later this year.
What Comes Next for Users
For internet users worldwide, Google’s Chrome and Android will remain intact. However, they may soon notice changes in how search engines are offered on new devices. Tech firms competing with Google will, for the first time, gain structured access to its vast search data, an unprecedented step that could influence the future of AI search assistants and digital markets globally.
The case reminds America’s antitrust rulings could have ripples well beyond its borders. As Judge Mehta’s decision shows, the battle over how much power Big Tech should wield is far from over, and its outcome will help shape how billions of people access the internet in the years to come.
