Google has avoided the harshest consequences in its long-running antitrust case, with a federal court ruling against the forced sale of Chrome or Android.
Instead, the court imposed specific limits on Google’s exclusive search contracts and directed the company to share certain search data with competitors, marking a measured approach to restoring competition.
Background
The Department of Justice (DOJ) originally filed the lawsuit in 2020, accusing Google of illegally maintaining a monopoly in online search and search advertising.
The complaint detailed practices such as preinstallation agreements with device makers and web browsers that allegedly blocked competitors and restricted consumer choice.
In August 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google did hold a monopoly in search and related advertising, but left the final remedies to be determined through a subsequent trial.
Court’s Ruling on Remedies
The September 2, 2025 decision sets clear boundaries for Google’s operations without resorting to extreme measures:
- No Divestiture of Core Products: The court confirmed that Google will not be forced to sell Chrome or Android, reasoning that such steps would go beyond the focus on search distribution and could harm consumers and partners.
- Restrictions on Exclusive Agreements: Google may continue to offer payments or incentives to partners to preload products, but cannot impose exclusive contracts that guarantee its search engine remains the default.
- Data Sharing Requirements: Google must provide competitors access to certain search index and user interaction data, though detailed ad-related information remains protected.
- Opening the Market: The remedies aim to increase competition in general search, prevent anticompetitive practices in AI-driven services, and ensure fairer conditions for rivals.
The DOJ emphasized that these steps are intended to prevent Google from extending its dominance and to allow competitors a fair opportunity in both search and AI-related markets.
Google’s Official Statement
Google responded through a blog post by Lee-Anne Mulholland, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, expressing concerns about user privacy and the limits imposed on distribution practices. The company stressed that competition is already strong and that users have the freedom to select their preferred services.
“People can easily choose the services they want,” the statement noted. Google reiterated its commitment to innovation and building products that consumers willingly use.
Industry Implications
The ruling signals a nuanced approach to regulating digital monopolies. By targeting specific practices rather than demanding structural divestitures, the court has balanced consumer protection with preserving innovation. Legal experts view this decision as a blueprint for addressing monopolistic behavior in rapidly evolving technology markets.
Outlook
This decision builds on earlier developments, including the DOJ’s 2020 antitrust lawsuit and the August 2024 ruling that confirmed Google’s monopoly in search, which together set the stage for the current remedies.
By reshaping Google’s search distribution while keeping its core platforms intact, the ruling demonstrates that antitrust enforcement can address monopolistic practices without dismantling a company’s essential products. It sets a precedent for how future cases involving Big Tech may balance competition, innovation, and consumer protection.