Google Monopoly Verdict Spurs Chrome Divestiture Debate \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A U.S. judge is now deciding how to penalize Google after ruling its search engine is an illegal monopoly. Proposed remedies include banning default search engine deals and forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser. The final ruling is expected before Labor Day.
Quick Looks
- Judge Amit Mehta to decide how to curb Google’s search monopoly.
- Justice Department proposes banning default search deals and selling Chrome.
- Google warns harsh remedies could stifle innovation and AI development.
- Both sides argue AI could reshape the search market.
- Google seeks a 60-day delay on implementing any ruling.
- Chrome divestiture is at center of DOJ’s remedy proposal.
- Apple opposes limits on default search agreements.
- Legal scholars and former FTC officials voice caution on DOJ proposals.
Deep Look
The future of one of the world’s most influential tech giants now hinges on a legal decision that could reshape how digital power is wielded in the AI age. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is weighing sweeping penalties for Google following a historic antitrust ruling that declared its search engine an illegal monopoly.
In Friday’s closing arguments, the Department of Justice (DOJ) pushed for tough remedies to dismantle Google’s dominance, including banning its lucrative default search agreements and requiring the sale of its Chrome browser, which controls a large share of global web browsing. The DOJ argues such steps are necessary to “kickstart” competition and prevent Google’s grip on online search from extending into the emerging artificial intelligence landscape.
“We believe the market’s waited long enough,” said DOJ attorney David Dahlquist, opposing Google’s request for a 60-day implementation delay. “It’s time to act.”
Google, however, contends that its position is already being challenged organically by disruptive AI technologies. Company attorneys argued that requiring Chrome’s divestiture or banning default contracts would be extreme overreaches, stifling innovation and weakening American competitiveness.
“The landscape is changing rapidly,” Google attorney John Schmidtlein told Mehta, emphasizing that conversational AI search tools from OpenAI, Perplexity, and others are already transforming the market. Schmidtlein also criticized the DOJ’s plan as “inequitable in the extreme.”
Judge Mehta appeared to wrestle with both sides’ perspectives throughout the hearing. At one point, he acknowledged that AI’s rapid evolution complicates the picture and may reduce Google’s market power naturally—but he also questioned whether that alone is enough to avoid regulatory action.
“This is what I’ve been struggling with,” Mehta said, referring to the role AI could play in leveling the playing field.
Mehta suggested he is seeking a middle ground, asserting that the goal is not to “kneecap Google” but to create space for credible competitors to emerge. He plans to spend the summer deliberating, with a final decision due before Labor Day.
Chrome Sale: A Bold Remedy
Of all the DOJ’s proposals, the suggested divestiture of Chrome is the most controversial and potentially impactful. Chrome, developed under the leadership of Google CEO Sundar Pichai, is not just a browser—it’s a gateway to Google’s ecosystem, giving the company massive access to user data and search traffic.
The DOJ claims selling Chrome would immediately undercut Google’s dominance in search and weaken its ability to steer traffic and data toward its own platforms—especially critical as Google integrates AI-powered search features.
Executives from AI competitors OpenAI and Perplexity testified they would be interested in acquiring Chrome should Mehta order a sale, indicating that such a move could significantly reshape the tech landscape.
But Google, supported by tech and legal experts, argues the sale would disrupt millions of users, reduce browser innovation, and set a troubling precedent for government interference in private business. Legal scholars and former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officials have submitted briefs cautioning against excessive remedies. Some warn that forcing Google to share user data or reassign browser ownership could damage public trust and violate user privacy expectations.
Apple and Default Deal Backlash
One of the DOJ’s key proposals is a 10-year ban on default search agreements, such as the one between Google and Apple, worth over $20 billion annually. Apple has fiercely opposed the ban, arguing it would deprive the company of critical revenue it uses for R&D. In filings, Apple warned that even without the deal, users would likely continue selecting Google as their preferred search engine—meaning the restriction may fail to achieve its goal.
Apple also clarified that the ban would not motivate it to develop its own search engine, undermining the DOJ’s hopes of spurring new competition through structural changes.
A Crossroads for Search and AI
While the courtroom showdown centers on search engines, its implications reach far deeper. Google has already begun transforming its search product into an AI-powered answer engine, a move designed to fend off rising competitors like ChatGPT and Claude. Critics argue that this next-generation search format could entrench Google’s dominance even further if its underlying data and browser ecosystem remain unchecked.
The DOJ insists that AI alone won’t dislodge Google’s entrenched market power, especially given the company’s massive resources and head start. To create real opportunities for competition, prosecutors argue, legal intervention is necessary.
Judge Mehta acknowledged that ordering Chrome’s divestiture carries less risk of speculative outcomes than other proposals—but Google pushed back. “Google thinks it’s the only one who can invent things,” Dahlquist quipped during the hearing, mocking the company’s resistance.
What’s Next?
Google is expected to appeal any remedy imposed by Mehta. However, it cannot formally begin that process until the judge issues a remedy order—a decision Mehta said he expects to make by early September.
The ruling could set a landmark precedent in how governments approach tech monopolies in the AI age. Whether Mehta opts for structural changes like Chrome’s sale or more targeted restrictions, the decision will ripple across Silicon Valley, the digital economy, and the way billions of people interact with the internet.
Google Monopoly Verdict Google Monopoly Verdict Google Monopoly Verdict
You must Register or Login to post a comment.