Google avoids Chrome breakup but must share search index data

US District Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that Google can keep Chrome and continue paying browser developers for default search placement, but must share search index data with competitors at marginal cost. The decision, stemming from Google’s antitrust case, represents a significantly lighter penalty than the Department of Justice had sought, with the judge citing AI search engines as a growing competitive threat that could naturally erode Google’s market dominance.

The big picture: Mehta’s 230-page ruling reflects his belief that generative AI companies are already better positioned to compete with Google than traditional search engines have been in decades.

• “The money flowing into this space, and how quickly it has arrived, is astonishing,” Mehta wrote, noting that AI firms already possess both the financial resources and technology to challenge Google’s search monopoly.
• The judge rejected forcing Google to sell Chrome as “incredibly messy and highly risky,” despite multi-billion-dollar bids from companies like Perplexity, an AI-powered search engine.

What Google must do: The approved remedies focus primarily on helping competitors build their own comprehensive search indexes.

• Google must provide search-index data to rivals at “marginal cost” to help them create indexes matching Google’s scale, though competitors will still need to build their own web crawlers and processing systems.
• For five years, Google must offer syndicated search results to competitors on “ordinary commercial terms” while they develop their own capabilities.
• The company must publicly disclose material changes to its ads auctions, targeting a pattern of undisclosed price increases revealed during the trial.

What Google gets to keep: The judge preserved several key aspects of Google’s current business model.

• Google can continue its estimated $20 billion annual payments to Apple for Safari default search placement, with only exclusivity arrangements banned.
• The company retains ownership of both Chrome and Android, with Mehta writing that forced divestiture “does not fit the wrong.”
• Revenue-sharing deals with browser developers like Mozilla and Opera can continue, which the judge noted prevents depriving independent browsers of critical funding.

Market reaction: Industry analysts view the ruling as favorable to Google’s existing operations.

• MoffettNathanson, a market research firm, called it a “slap-on-the-wrist ruling” and “a home run for the status quo” in a research note.
• Mozilla CEO Laura Chambers expressed relief on LinkedIn, finding it “encouraging to see the Court recognize the risk of unintended consequences when trying to improve search competition.”

What they’re saying: Both sides indicated they’re reviewing the decision for potential next steps.

• “Now the Court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share Search data with rivals,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, while noting privacy concerns.
• The Justice Department said the ruling “recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade.”

Why this matters: The relatively light penalties suggest courts may view AI as a natural market corrective rather than requiring heavy regulatory intervention, potentially setting precedent for how antitrust cases handle rapidly evolving technology sectors where new competitors can emerge quickly.