Judge Lets Google Keep Chrome in Landmark Search Antitrust Ruling

A federal judge has delivered a major remedies ruling in the Justice Department’s long-running antitrust case against Google, but he stopped short of some of the most aggressive fixes the DOJ sought.

Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google does not have to sell its Chrome browser. He will also allow Google to keep paying distribution partners to preload or place its search and AI products — but he prohibited certain exclusive deals that could cut competitors out of key distribution channels.

What the ruling requires and permits

Mehta ordered Google to share certain search information with competitors — a move aimed at helping rivals bootstrap their services. He also barred Google from striking exclusive distribution agreements for search and AI assistant products that would lock rivals out of important consumer touchpoints.

• No forced sale of Chrome — the browser remains with Google.
• Google must share select search signals that could help rivals improve relevance and product development.
• Payments for preloading or placement can continue, but exclusionary exclusives are banned where they cut off competitors.

The DOJ had pushed for broader, structural remedies — including forcing a Chrome sale and requiring Google to sell query data to rivals — arguing that no single tweak would restore competition. The judge declined those sweeping measures, citing concerns raised by Google about privacy, investment incentives for Chromium, and the fairness of forcing the company to hand over proprietary knowledge.

The remedies trial earlier this year brought testimony from Google’s leadership and executives from Apple, OpenAI, Perplexity, Mozilla and others. Many warned that blunt remedies could have collateral effects: for example, browser developers said their projects and privacy protections could be harmed if payments and development incentives were removed.

Why AI made this ruling more complex

The case was filed in 2020, before generative AI entered the mainstream. By the remedies trial, AI had become central to how search will evolve. The DOJ feared that anticompetitive practices in legacy search could migrate into AI assistants, so Mehta’s remedies explicitly address distribution of AI-powered products as well as search.

That makes this decision especially consequential. It’s the most significant tech antitrust remedies ruling in about 25 years, since the DOJ’s Microsoft case, and comes amid other legal blows to Google this year in app store and advertising cases.

Still, the practical impact may be slow to appear. Mehta’s remedies ruling opens the door for Google to appeal the core finding that it illegally monopolized search. That appeal process could take years and could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

What organizations should do next

Companies, competitors and regulators should assume the rules of distribution and access may change. Legal appeals could delay implementation, but preparing for new data-sharing standards, evaluating partner contracts for exclusivity risks, and modeling how search signals affect AI performance are practical first steps.

QuarkyByte’s approach is to turn legal remedies into operational scenarios: we map partner ecosystems, quantify how shared signals change competitive dynamics, and stress-test business models under alternative regulatory outcomes. For regulators and industry leaders this means clear timelines, measurable impact metrics, and concrete risk controls—not just legal theory.

For now, the ruling reshapes the conversation about how to rein in dominant platforms without breaking the systems that depend on them. Expect appeals, more litigation, and a long period of uncertainty — but also new opportunities for rival search and AI services if they can leverage the access this decision requires.