US Judge Lets Google Keep Chrome but Orders Data Sharing with Rivals
Judge Amit Mehta bars exclusive search deals and requires Google to share search data after years-long antitrust trial
A federal judge has declined to break up Google but ordered the company to share key search information with competitors and to end exclusive deals that helped entrench its dominance.
District Judge Amit Mehta issued remedies on Tuesday following a years-long court battle over Google's position in online search. The litigation focused on Google's practice of making its search engine the default on its own products, such as the Chrome browser and Android operating system, and on devices and browsers produced by other companies, including Apple.
The US Department of Justice had sought dramatic remedies, including the sale of Google's Chrome browser. Mehta's decision permits Google to retain Chrome while barring the company from entering exclusive contracts that make its search engine the automatic default for other firms' devices and software. The ruling also requires Google to provide certain search data to rival companies, a measure designed to lower barriers to competition in core search services.
Google had proposed less sweeping fixes, including limits on revenue-sharing agreements with firms such as Apple that pay to make Google's search the default on their devices and browsers. The company said on Tuesday that it viewed the ruling as a victory and suggested the rapid rise of artificial intelligence in the industry likely influenced the court's approach to remedies.
The case examined whether Google's default arrangements and commercial agreements unlawfully maintained its monopoly in general search, thereby harming competition and consumers. The DOJ argued that those arrangements made it difficult for rival search engines to gain scale and access to the data needed to improve their services.
Mehta's remedies aim to address those concerns without pursuing the breakup sought by prosecutors. By prohibiting exclusive default contracts and mandating data access, the order seeks to give competitors a better opportunity to compete for users and advertisers while keeping Google's integrated suite of products intact.
Legal and market observers will watch how the data-sharing requirements are defined and enforced. The precise scope of what search data must be shared, how it will be provided to rivals, and the duration of any oversight will determine how effectively the measures increase competition. The judge's order will likely prompt further filings from the parties to clarify those details and set timelines for implementation.
The decision represents a significant moment in US antitrust enforcement against a major technology company. It follows a period of intensified scrutiny by regulators and lawmakers of the market power held by dominant digital platforms. Whether the remedies ordered by Mehta lead to measurable gains for competing search engines will depend on the technical and commercial mechanics of data access and how quickly rivals can use the information to improve their products.
Both government lawyers and Google are expected to monitor compliance closely and may return to court over disputes about the order's interpretation and execution. The remedies mark a middle path between a breakup and leaving Google's existing agreements untouched, reflecting a judicial calculation that structural separation was not necessary to address the harms alleged in the case.
For consumers and advertisers, the immediate effects are likely to be modest while technical and contractual changes are implemented. Over time, however, the alteration of default arrangements and the sharing of search data could create opportunities for alternative search providers to gain share, influencing user choice and the competitive landscape in online search and related digital advertising markets.