Judge Lets Google Keep Chrome – But Not All Its Monopoly Moves
Image Source: Pixabay
Google (GOOGL) will get to keep Chrome, avoiding the most severe remedy the Justice Department sought after finding Google illegally monopolized search markets last year.
Federal Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling bars Google from entering exclusive search distribution contracts, but allows the company to continue paying partners for placement. In other words: Google can still write Apple (AAPL) its annual $20 billion check to remain the default search engine on iPhones. Apple shareholders celebrated alongside Google’s, with both stocks jumping 8% and 4% respectively in after-hours trading.
Google must share certain search index and user interaction data with competitors on commercial terms. The company won’t have to divest Android either, which prosecutors had floated as a contingent remedy. Mehta called the government’s demands “overreaching,” noting that Google hadn’t used these assets to create illegal restraints.
The decision reflects judicial recognition that generative AI has fundamentally altered the competitive landscape. Mehta explicitly cited the rise of AI competitors like OpenAI, Perplexity, and Anthropic as reasons to avoid “jolting the system” with structural breakups. There’s a six-year oversight period that focuses on preventing Google from extending search dominance into AI rather than dismantling existing infrastructure.
Judge Mehta’s ruling makes one thing clear: the market is moving faster than the courts. Rather than force a breakup, he’s betting that AI-driven innovation will reshape search. He’s right. The smart move is to prepare to continuously adapt to the speed of technological change and to seriously concentrate on AEO (answer engine optimization). It’s the new, new thing.
More By This Author:
Meta Adds AI Voice Translation To Reels And Everyone’s Suddenly Fluent
ChatGPT’s Ad Dilemma: When 700 Million Users Aren’t Enough
OpenAI Releases Two Open-Weight Models
Disclosure: This is not a sponsored post. I am the author of this article and it expresses my own opinions. I am not, nor is my company, receiving compensation for it.