The ruling states that Google does not need to sell Chrome, but that exclusive contracts for its own services are prohibited and that data sharing with competitors is mandatory in anticipation of the future of AI search.



On September 2, 2025, Judge Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a set of remedial measures against Google in an antitrust lawsuit alleging that the company illegally maintained a monopoly in the search market . While the remedial measures found that Google maintained a monopoly, they rejected the Department of Justice's request for stricter remedial measures, such as the sale of the Chrome business. However, they did order several important remedial measures to promote competition.

Google Search Engine Monopoly Ruling.pdf
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Google%20Search%20Engine%20Monopoly%20Ruling.pdf

Google's statement on Sept 2025 Search DOJ decision
https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/doj-search-decision-sept-2025/

Google Doesn't Have to Sell Chrome Browser, Judge Rules in Antitrust Case - Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-02/google-not-required-to-sell-chrome-in-court-antitrust-ruling

The lawsuit was filed in October 2020 by the Department of Justice against Google , alleging that the company 'illegibly maintains a monopoly in the search and search advertising markets through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices.' Judge Mehta ruled that 'Google's conduct constitutes a monopoly in general search services and general search text advertising.'

Federal judge rules that Google's payments to maintain its dominance in smartphone search violate antitrust laws - GIGAZINE



The Justice Department then proposed corrective measures for Google, including the sale of Chrome, the separation of Google Search and Google Play from Android, and the licensing of search data.

The Department of Justice plans to force Google to sell Chrome, separate Android search from Google Play, and license search data - GIGAZINE



Judge Mehta's corrective opinion prohibits Google from entering into or maintaining any existing exclusive agreements with respect to its search services, including Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and Gemini, and specifically prohibits it from mandating the distribution, preloading, or specific placement of these apps as a condition of licensing them in the Google Play Store on Android.

However,

the court ruled that large payments to device makers like Apple to set their search engines as the default remained valid. Judge Mehta concluded that banning these payments would deprive other companies like Apple and Mozilla of significant revenue and risk causing 'severe, and potentially catastrophic, harm.'

Mozilla, the developer of Firefox, claims that Google's antitrust lawsuit will destroy its various businesses and put its operating funds in a pinch - GIGAZINE



The Justice Department's request for an order to sell Google's Chrome browser business was denied. Judge Mehta ruled that 'the causal relationship between Google's monopoly power and Chrome's default settings has not been proven, and a sale of Chrome would be extremely burdensome, risky, and likely to result in a substantial deterioration of the product and a loss of consumer benefits.' The court also rejected a proposal to force Google to sell its Android business if future remedies failed.

Additionally, Google was ordered to provide search and search text ad syndication services on normal commercial terms to enable suitable competitors to provide high-quality search results and search text ads while they develop their own search technologies and capabilities.

Furthermore, Justice Mehta clearly recognized that the rise of generative AI is a 'game changer' that could fundamentally alter the competitive landscape of the search market. While AI technology was barely discussed during the initial trial, it was addressed 'head-on as an early competitive threat' during the review of corrective measures, and became a major factor in influencing the direction of the judgment.

Judge Mehta believes that generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Perplexity have the potential to disrupt Google's monopoly on the search market, and asserts that the purpose of this lawsuit is not simply to encourage competition among existing search engines, but to 'prevent Google's dominance in search from being handed over to generative AI.'



After pointing out the structural challenges that AI poses to Google's monopoly, Judge Mehta ordered Google to share data with appropriate competitors.

The 'appropriate competitors' include not only traditional search engine competitors like Microsoft and DuckDuckGo, but also AI search competitors like OpenAI and Perplexity, as well as companies planning to enter the search market. Furthermore, the data to be shared is limited to search index data and data related to user search behavior, excluding advertising data and knowledge graphs , which the Department of Justice is seeking to share. Furthermore, the data to be shared must be overseen by a specialized technical committee and must be subject to strict privacy protection measures, such as anonymization.

Judge Mehta ordered Google and the Department of Justice to negotiate based on the proposed corrective action opinion and submit a revised final proposal by September 10. However, even after the final corrective action is finalized, Google may appeal, so it may not actually come into effect until late 2027 or early 2028.

In response to the ruling, Google stated that it was carefully considering the decision regarding restrictions on distribution of its services and the obligation to share search data with competitors, due to concerns about the impact on users and privacy. However, it also praised the court for recognizing that more stringent measures such as divestiture of Chrome and Android 'would have gone beyond the original focus on distribution of search and would have harmed consumers and partners.'

DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg criticized the order, saying it would not adequately address Google's illegal conduct and would 'allow Google to continue to use its monopoly to thwart competitors, including AI search.'




Related Posts:

in Web Service, Posted by log1i_yk