Judge Rejects Forced Sale of Chrome and Android in Google Antitrust Remedy; Orders Data Sharing, Limits Exclusive Search Deals

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected the Justice Department’s request to force Google to sell its Chrome browser and Android operating system as a remedy in a landmark antitrust case, opting instead for measures meant to foster competition without breaking up the company.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that plaintiffs had overreached in seeking divestiture of those assets, writing that Google did not use Chrome or Android to effect any illegal restraints. Mehta ordered Google to share certain search data with rivals and barred the company from entering into exclusive agreements that would lock out competing search engines, though he stopped short of banning payments to partners such as Apple and AT&T that have made Google the default search option on many devices.

The decision concluded the remedy phase of a trial that included three weeks of hearings in April. Mehta had earlier characterized Google as a "monopolist" during the broader litigation; his latest order separates liability findings from the scope of relief he deemed appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the search market.

Under the remedy, Google must provide competitors access to certain search-related data that the judge said could allow rival services to improve their products and better compete for users. The court also prohibited agreements that create exclusivity for Google as the default search provider, while allowing the company to continue commercial arrangements that include payments to distributors and device makers, subject to the new limitations.

Plaintiffs, including the Justice Department and several state attorneys general, had asked the court for aggressive structural remedies, arguing that Google’s contracts and payments entrenched its dominance by steering traffic and preventing rivals from gaining scale. The judge concluded those requested divestitures were unnecessary to address the illegal conduct he found and would be disproportionate to the harms proven at trial.

Critics of the ruling reacted sharply, describing the outcome as a lenient response that falls short of dismantling the company’s means of maintaining market power. Supporters of a lighter remedy said that data-sharing and restrictions on exclusivity could create space for competitors to innovate without the disruption that a breakup of widely used consumer products could cause.

The case has been described by legal experts and industry watchers as a landmark test of how courts should remedy alleged monopolistic behavior in digital markets. Mehta’s approach foregrounds behavioral and interoperability remedies rather than structural separation, a choice that will shape how regulators and plaintiffs pursue complex tech antitrust litigation going forward.

Google and the Justice Department did not immediately release statements in court filings attached to Tuesday’s order. The company has previously defended its practices as pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers, while the DOJ has argued that Google’s arrangements shut out rivals and harmed choice.

Legal analysts say the remedies will be subject to intense scrutiny as they are implemented and could face appeals. Plaintiffs retain options to challenge the scope of relief in higher courts, and the effectiveness of data-sharing and anti-exclusivity measures will likely determine whether further litigation is pursued.

The ruling represents a pivotal moment in U.S. antitrust enforcement against major technology platforms: it limits the most radical structural remedies sought by regulators while imposing new constraints intended to open opportunities for competitors. How those constraints operate in practice and whether they will meaningfully alter market dynamics for search services remains to be seen as parties and industry participants adjust to the court’s directives.