Court rejects Chrome divestiture, directs Google to aid rivals with data

Google will not be required to sell its Chrome web browser but must share certain search data with competitors, a US federal judge has ruled, according to a BBC report.

The ruling by District Judge Amit Mehta comes after a lengthy legal battle over the company's dominance in the online search market. The case focused on its position as the default search engine on its own products, such as Android and Chrome, as well as on devices made by other companies like Apple.

The US Department of Justice had sought an order requiring the company to sell the browser. However, the judge ruled that Google can retain ownership of the browser but must end exclusive contracts that prevent device makers and browsers from preloading rival search engines.

Google is also ordered to share search data with qualified competitors to foster competition.

Following the ruling, the company issued a statement saying, “Today’s decision recognises how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information.”

The company added, “This underlines what we’ve been saying since this case was filed in 2020: Competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want. That’s why we disagree so strongly with the Court’s initial decision in August 2024 on liability.”

Judge Mehta had previously found that the company used unfair methods to maintain a monopoly in online search, violating US law, but described a full divestiture of Chrome as ‘a poor fit for this case', the report noted.

The company will also not have to sell its Android operating system, which powers most smartphones globally. It maintained that selling Android would disrupt its proper functioning.

Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater commented on the ruling on X (formerly Twitter), stating, "Today's remedy order agreed with the need to restore competition to the long-monopolised search market, and we are now weighing our options and thinking through whether the ordered relief goes far enough in serving that goal.”