Court allows Google not to sell its web browser, but obliges it to share data with competitors - BBC
Kyiv • UNN
A US federal judge ruled that Google is not required to sell Chrome, but must share data with competitors. The company is prohibited from exclusive contracts.
A United States federal judge has ruled that tech giant Google is not obligated to sell its Chrome web browser, but must share information with competitors. This was reported by the BBC, writes UNN.
Details
The remedies outlined by District Judge Amit Mehta came after a multi-year legal battle over Google's dominance in online search. The case concerned Google's position as the default search engine for a number of its own products, such as Android and Chrome, as well as others made by companies like Apple.
The US Department of Justice had demanded that Google sell Chrome. The ruling, issued on Tuesday, means that the tech giant can keep it, but will be prohibited from having exclusive contracts and will have to share search data with competitors.
Google proposed less radical solutions, such as limiting its revenue-sharing agreements with firms like Apple to make its search engine the default on their devices and browsers. On Tuesday, the company said it viewed the decision as a victory and stated that the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) likely contributed to the outcome.
Meta signs $10 billion deal with Google: details revealed22.08.25, 08:54 • 4282 views
Today's decision recognizes how much the industry has changed with the advent of AI, which gives people many more ways to find information. This underscores what we have been saying since this case was filed in 2020: competition is fierce, and people can easily choose the services they want.
The tech giant has denied wrongdoing since the first charges were brought against it in 2020, arguing that its market dominance stems from its search engine being a superior product compared to others, and consumers simply prefer it.
Last year, Judge Mehta ruled that Google used unfair practices to establish a monopoly in the online search market, actively working to maintain a level of dominance to the extent that it violated US law.
But in his ruling, Judge Mehta said that a complete sale of Chrome "is ill-suited for this case." Google will also not have to sell its Android operating system, which runs on most of the world's smartphones.
The company argued that divesting parts of its operations, such as Android, would mean they would effectively cease to function properly.
Today's remedy order is consistent with the need to restore competition in the long-monopolized search market, and we are now weighing our options and considering whether the ordered remedy is sufficient to achieve that goal.
Shares of Alphabet, Google's parent company, rose more than 8% after the ruling. Smartphone manufacturers such as Apple, Samsung, and Motorola will also benefit.
Before the ruling, Google paid such firms billions of dollars for exclusive pre-loading or promotion of the tech company's products.
It was revealed in court that Google paid over $26 billion for such deals with Apple, Mozilla, and others in 2021.
Now Google will not be allowed to enter into any exclusive contracts for Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or the Gemini app.
This means that phone manufacturers will be free to pre-load or promote other search engines, browsers, or AI assistants alongside Google.
However, Google will be able to continue paying distributors for default placement. Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, said the decision was "good news for big tech companies."
Apple also gets a good win, as the decision forces Google to review the search agreement annually.
Judge Mehta's decision "seems less draconian than the market expected," said Melissa Otto, head of research at S&P Global Visible Alpha.
With Google's search operation expected to generate around $200 billion this year, and tens of billions of that expected to go to distribution partners. This is a win-win situation for the main corporate players involved in the case, Melissa Otto said.
But Google's competitor, DuckDuckGo, said the decision failed to "force the changes needed to address Google's illegal conduct."
"As a result, consumers will continue to suffer," said DuckDuckGo founder and CEO Gabriel Weinberg.
This decision is not the end of the tech giant's legal proceedings.
Later this month, Google is due to appear in court in a separate case brought by the Department of Justice, where a judge found that the company illegally monopolized online advertising technologies.
Addition
Google announced changes to Android that will allow only apps from identified developers to be installed starting in 2027. This will enhance security by blocking unverified applications.