So, it looks like Google won’t be selling Chrome after all.
Last year, a federal court ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in search and had been weighing remedies. Now, the court has issued its final judgment, imposing new restrictions on Google’s contracts but stopping well short of the breakups and long-term remedies the DOJ wanted — a result that will probably be seen as a win for Google.
Here are the biggest determinations from the ruling.
OK, the big one – no divestiture or breakups. The court rejected DOJ proposals to force divestitures of Chrome or Android, calling them overreaching. Per the ruling, “Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints.” (Sorry, Perplexity!)
Google cannot enter into exclusive deals that tie Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or its Gemini AI app to other products. But it can continue making distribution deals, so long as they aren’t exclusive. Also, Google can keep paying partners for default or preferred placement of its products — a key part of its current strategy — provided the agreements don’t bar rivals.
The remedies also explicitly cover competition in gen AI, ensuring Google can’t use the same tactics to try and dominate emerging AI search.
See the full ruling here. By the way, the remedies last six years — longer than Google wanted but well short of the DOJ’s proposed ten. (A Technical Committee will monitor compliance and ensure Google doesn’t retaliate against competitors or rivals.)
Why This Matters:
The DOJ pushed for sweeping remedies, including breaking up Google’s businesses and extending restrictions for a decade. The court rejected those demands, instead adopting a narrower set of behavioral rules. That leaves Google’s core business model intact, including its ability to pay for default search placement — the very practice at the heart of the government’s case.
Experts React:
Herbert Hovenkamp, a University Professor at Penn Law and the Wharton School who frequently comments on antitrust issues and economic policy, said the ruling makes clear the judge/court was right to reject the DOJ’s proposed breakup remedy: he was “wisely aware that in the face of such a game changer, a drastic structural remedy is not smart.”
Meanwhile, Marketecture’s Ari Paparo said it was a “huge win for Google in the search case.”
Legal analysts say the ruling strikes a middle ground but clearly favors Google. “The DOJ wanted a Chrome or Android breakup — the court didn’t go there. This is a manageable outcome for Google,” one antitrust attorney said.
Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of the Chamber of Progress, a trade group representing technology companies including Google on issues like antitrust law, applauded the court for rejecting what he called a “slew of far-reaching proposals” and “fantastical remedies.” See his full thread here:
Our Take:
While the DOJ can claim a symbolic win — establishing that Google abused monopoly power — the practical effect here feels pretty limited. Google avoided deep structural remedies, preserved its key revenue streams, and only faces restrictions for six years. The ruling reinforces Google’s strength in search and positions it to compete aggressively in AI. In short: Google lost the case, but won the remedy.
