Google will not have to sell off Chrome but must share data, US judge rules

Ruling comes after five-year legal fight

Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google. EPA

Google must share data with rivals to open up competition in online search, a judge in Washington ruled on Tuesday, while rejecting a prosecutors' effort to make the internet giant sell its popular Chrome browser.

The long-awaited decision largely avoids a worst-case scenario faced by Alphabet, owner of Google, which could have involved the sale of the company's popular Chrome web browser, as was suggested by the US Department of Justice.

The decision also allowed Alphabet to avoid what many considered a penalty that would have harmed its dominance. US District Judge Amit Mehta allowed the search giant to continue to pay other companies to make its products the default option on devices.

A sign at the Washington District Court shows trials that could affect millions of users. Cody Combs / The National

“Google will not be barred from making payments or offering other consideration to distribution partners for preloading or placement of Google Search, Chrome or its GenAI products,” the ruling read.

“Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial – in some cases, crippling – downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban.”

Companies including Apple had very lucrative arrangements with Google on this front.

Mr Mehta's decision also allows for Alphabet to maintain control and ownership of Android, its mobile operating system that is used on hundreds of millions of smartphones.

A forced divestiture of Android would have also proven challenging for Alphabet. Android gives it considerable influence to keep customers in Google's ecosystem.

Legal representatives of the Department of Justice at federal court in Washington in April 2025 as the US squared up to Google before US District Judge Amit Mehta. Bloomberg

Mark MacCarthy, a senior fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown Law in Washington, described the decisions as a step in the right direction.

“The judge’s decision to require data-sharing is needed and crucial in jump starting competition,” he said. Mr MacCarthy said Mr Mehta also briefly mentioned the need to preserve user privacy as part of his remedy.

“This gives privacy advocates a fighting chance to ensure that needed pro-competitive measures do not come at the expense of privacy,” he said.

Google chief executive Sundar Pichai expressed concern at trial in the case in April that the data-sharing measures sought by the Department of Justice could enable Google's rivals to reverse-engineer its technology.

A kiosk at the Federal District Court in Washington shows anti-trust cases from history. Cody Combs / The National

Google has previously said it plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on Mr Mehta's ruling.

The ruling results from a five-year legal battle between one of the world's most profitable companies and the US, where Mr Mehta ruled last year that Google holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising.

At a trial in April, prosecutors argued for far-reaching remedies to restore competition and prevent Google from extending its dominance in search to artificial intelligence.

Throughout the remedy portion of the trial, artificial intelligence was brought up by the federal government, Alphabet and Mr Mehta, with its growing influence raising questions of how effective penalties against Google might be.