Why a US Antitrust Ruling Lets Google Keep Chrome—and How AI Threats Shift the Game

A US federal judge recently ruled that Google may keep its Chrome browser but is prohibited from signing exclusive contracts and must share search data; Alphabet’s stock surged 6% after the decision.

Judge Amit Mehta rejected the Department of Justice’s most severe remedy, which included forcing a split of Chrome, stating that such a divestiture was beyond reasonable scope.

The ruling allows Google to pre‑install its products through paid agreements but bans exclusive deals, rejecting the DOJ’s demand to stop “forced joint promotion” that keeps Google Search as the default in browsers and smartphones.

Google pays Apple billions of dollars annually to be the default search engine on iPhone, a lucrative arrangement that also boosted Apple’s after‑hours stock by 8%.

The DOJ’s 2020 antitrust lawsuit accused Google of maintaining monopoly power in general search through high entry barriers and a self‑reinforcing loop.

In August 2024, a Washington D.C. district court found Google in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, deeming its dominance in internet search illegal.

During a May 2025 remedial hearing, the DOJ urged the judge to compel Google to share data used to generate search results, such as user click‑through behavior.

The court also refused the DOJ’s request to force a structural split of Chrome, labeling the move a “partial victory” for Google, with generative‑AI firms like OpenAI cited as behind‑the‑scenes influencers.

Judge Mehta noted that AI tools such as ChatGPT are emerging as alternatives to traditional search engines, posing a “new competitive threat” to Google.

OpenAI executives testified that access to Google’s search data would improve ChatGPT’s search experience, reinforcing the narrative of an “AI challenge to search dominance.”

The court concluded that, given rapid AI advancements, the monopoly position of traditional search engines is no longer ironclad, eliminating the need for a structural breakup and suggesting that the “AI threat” argument may become a key defense in future antitrust cases.

Specifically, the decision bars Google from exclusive search‑engine distribution agreements, requires it to share portions of its search data with competitors, and prohibits bundling the Google Play Store with mandatory pre‑installation of other Google apps on Android.

Critics, such as the non‑profit Economic Freedom Project, called the ruling a “total failure,” arguing that it effectively lets Google maintain its monopoly while imposing only superficial remedies.

Overall, Google escaped a major breakup not because it isn’t monopolistic, but because the AI wave convinced the court that the rules of the search market are being rewritten.

Later this year, Google faces a separate hearing on its online advertising technology monopoly and related antitrust violations.