Judge Rules Google Can Keep Chrome, Rejects Breakup Order
▼ Summary
– Google avoided the worst-case scenario in the antitrust case, as the court did not require it to divest the Chrome browser.
– The court will impose only modest behavioral remedies, including forcing Google to release some search data to competitors and limit exclusive distribution deals.
– The Department of Justice had previously secured a victory by proving Google violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and had proposed more severe remedies, including Chrome divestiture.
– Judge Mehta ruled that Google’s use of Chrome as a vehicle for search is not illegal and that the government overreached in seeking forced divestiture of key assets.
– Google will still be allowed to pay for search placement deals but cannot require partners to distribute its apps like Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini.
In a landmark antitrust decision, Google has successfully defended its ownership of the Chrome browser against a breakup order sought by the U.S. Department of Justice. District Court Judge Amit Mehta rejected the government’s most aggressive remedy proposals, opting instead for a series of behavioral changes aimed at curbing the tech giant’s dominance in online search. The ruling allows Google to retain control of Chrome and Android while imposing new restrictions on its business practices.
The case, which concluded last year with a finding that Google violated antitrust laws, entered its remedy phase earlier this year. Federal prosecutors had argued that Chrome was central to Google’s ability to maintain an illegal search monopoly and pushed for its divestiture. They also explored the possibility of spinning off Android and forcing the company to share proprietary search technology with rivals.
Judge Mehta, however, determined that such drastic measures were unwarranted. In his view, the government “overreached” in seeking the forced sale of key assets like Chrome, which were not used to impose illegal restraints. The court found that while Google’s conduct warranted correction, structural breakup was not necessary to restore competition.
Instead, the ruling focuses on opening up certain aspects of Google’s ecosystem. The company will be required to provide some search data to competitors and will face new limits on exclusive distribution agreements. Most significantly, Google can no longer require partners to pre-install its suite of apps, including Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini, as a condition for accessing other services like the Play Store.
This means device manufacturers will have greater freedom to choose which apps come preloaded on Android devices, though Google can still pay for prominent placement through agreements with companies like Apple and Mozilla. The outcome represents a compromise, preserving Google’s integrated products while attempting to foster a more competitive digital marketplace.
(Source: Ars Technica)
