A federal judge has ruled against the Department of Justice’s demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, delivering a significant victory to the tech giant. In a comprehensive 230-page decision, Judge Amit Mehta rejected the government’s claim that forcing Google to sell Chrome was necessary to address its alleged monopolistic practices in the internet search market. The judge stated that the government “overreached” in its request, deeming the divestiture of Chrome, or even the Android operating system, an unnecessary measure. He argued that these assets were not instrumental in Google’s alleged illegal restraints of trade.
Despite this major win for Google, the ruling does impose substantial restrictions on the company’s business practices. Judge Mehta banned Google from entering into exclusive distribution agreements for its core products, including its search engine, Google Assistant, Gemini AI, and Chrome. This means Google can no longer compel device manufacturers to pre-install its apps as a condition for access to the Google Play Store, nor can it tie revenue-sharing arrangements to app placement. However, the ruling clarifies that Google may continue to pay partners, like Apple, for pre-installing its apps and search engine, acknowledging that ending such arrangements could harm both partners and consumers.
A key element of the ruling requires Google to share certain search data with competitors. Judge Mehta argued that this data sharing would help to level the competitive playing field, mitigating the advantages Google gained through its exclusive distribution deals. Importantly, the ruling does not require Google to share data related to its advertising business.
While Google celebrated the avoidance of a Chrome divestiture, the company expressed reservations about certain aspects of the ruling in a statement released Tuesday. Google cited concerns regarding the impact of the new restrictions on users and their privacy, indicating a potential review and possible appeal of specific elements of the decision. The company had previously hinted at an appeal of Judge Mehta’s initial ruling but opted to await the final judgment before proceeding.
