Google will not be forced to sell Chrome, but it will have to give up its exclusive agreements for the distribution of its services

The antitrust case between the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and Google reached a significant turning point yesterday with the ruling issued by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court. He has determined that Google will not be required to sell Chrome nor divest its Android operating system.

While at first glance it may appear that Google has achieved its objectives (and to a large extent, it has), the reality is the technology giant has not obtained everything it sought, as the judgment also sets forth a series of obligations and restrictions. Among these, the most notable is that Google must share its data with competitors and may not establish contracts that grant exclusivity to its products.

What the Ruling states

The U.S. judiciary has ultimately rejected some of the plaintiff’s most drastic requests (such as forcing Google to divest Chrome) and has accepted a portion of the proposals submitted by Google, although with some modifications. These are the main conclusions of the ruling recently issued by Judge Amit P. Mehta:

• Google will not have to split up its business: The court will not require Google to sell or separate key products such as Chrome or Android.
• Prohibition of exclusive contracts: Google may not enter into or maintain agreements that grant exclusivity for the distribution of its Search engine, Chrome, Google Assistant, and Gemini. Consequently, Google will not be permitted to have any agreement that conditions the licensing of Play Store or any other Google application on the distribution, preloading, or installation of its other services. It may also not make the receipt of revenue-sharing payments contingent upon the installation of certain applications or services. Nor may it prohibit its partners from simultaneously distributing any other GSE product, browser, or GenAI.
• Payments will not be prohibited: Google will be able to make payments to its partners (such as phone manufacturers or browser developers) for the pre-installation of its Search products.
• Sharing data with competitors: Google will be required to provide certain data from its search index and from user interactions to “qualified competitors” in order to encourage competition.
• Google will not have to present choice screens: The court did not impose on the technology company the obligation to display choice screens to users within its products, nor will it be required to encourage its Android distribution partners to do so.
• Creation of a technical committee: The court has mandated the formation of a committee to supervise the implementation and compliance with the final judgment.

The objective of this ruling is to ensure market balance and to curb Google’s anticompetitive conduct. The document establishes that the final judgment will remain in effect for six years.

The role of AI as a key factor in the case

It should be noted that the decisions made by Judge Mehta have been influenced by the rapid development of artificial intelligence in recent years, which has altered the competitive landscape and introduced new market participants.

“Google remains the dominant company in the relevant product markets. No existing competitor has wrested market share from it. And no new competitor has entered the market. Yet artificial intelligence technologies, particularly generative AI (“GenAI”), still have the potential to make a difference,” the document explains.

The ruling issued by Judge Mehta affirms that the emergence of generative AI changed the course of the case: “Therefore, these remedial proceedings have focused both on promoting competition among GSEs and on ensuring that Google’s dominance in search does not extend into the GenAI field”.

Next steps

This case, initiated in 2020 with an antitrust lawsuit filed by the DOJ, gained particular significance in August 2024, when Judge Mehta ruled: “Google is a monopolist and has acted to maintain its monopoly”. Since then, we have witnessed proposals and counterproposals submitted by both parties involved.

Although Judge Mehta’s ruling does not constitute a final judgment, it does represent a meaningful step toward resolving the case. Now, Google and the DOJ will have to convene and deliberate in order to submit “a joint revised final judgment that is consistent with this Memorandum Opinion” by September 10.

Likewise, Google did not delay in stating its position regarding the decision of the U.S. judiciary and states that it is reviewing the matter thoroughly. “The Court has imposed limits on the distribution of Google’s services and will require us to share search data with the competition. We are concerned about the impact these requirements will have on our users and their privacy, and we are carefully analyzing the decision.

The Court recognized that forcing divestiture of Chrome and Android would have gone beyond the scope of this case concerning search distribution and would have harmed consumers and our partners.”

Read our statement on today’s decision in the case involving Google Search:

Earlier today a U.S. court overseeing the Department of Justice’s lawsuit over how we distribute Search issued a decision on next steps.

Today’s decision recognizes how much the industry has changed…

— News from Google (@NewsFromGoogle) September 2, 2025

Photo: Gemini