US v. Google: a US federal judge rules that Google will not be required to divest Chrome or Android, but it must share Search data with rivals; GOOG jumps 8%+

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the company can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts and must share search data.

CNBC 2025-09-03 Jennifer Elias

Discussion

@aagslater Abigail Slater on x
🚨MAJOR NEWS🚨 Today, a court issued remedies in a major antitrust case against Google's unlawful monopolization of internet search and search advertising. This is an important step in a key antitrust case the Department of Justice has pursued since the first Trump administration.…
@senwarren Elizabeth Warren on x
First, the court ruled Google's search business is an illegal monopoly. But now the judge's remedies fail to hold Google accountable for breaking the law. This ruling is a slap on the wrist. The Trump Justice Department must appeal to break up this Big Tech giant. Meanwhile,
@munster_gene Gene Munster on x
I expect in 5 years, $GOOG will still be paying $AAPL around $20B a year for search placement.
@aagslater Abigail Slater on x
Importantly, the court also recognized the key inflection point we are in with the development of AI. The court gave a leg up to the United States in the global AI race, preventing Google from slowing down AI innovation with the same anticompetitive playbook it used to freeze se…
@jeffjarvis @jeffjarvis on x
The decision's better than feared. AI *is* competition. Google's not a monopoly. Sharing data probably helps others' AI. Selling Chrome'd be idiotic. Cutting off fees to Mozilla, Apple would've been damaging, but without exclusivity do they reduce? 1/ https://www.nytimes.com/...
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
Whoa: Google lost the search antitrust case a while back, but just resoundingly won the remedies phase. They can continue doing all of the stuff the court found unlawful, but with some minor new data sharing obligations limiting search default payoffs to 1-year terms.
@aagslater Abigail Slater on x
And now Google is being held accountable. The court didn't order all of our requested relief, and we are weighing our options. But the court did agree with the need for remedies that will restore competition and reopen the digital playing field, driving investment and innovatio…
@signulll @signulll on x
this is a massive W for google... like ankle weights off in water type situation, & fins on. if doj had succeeded, forcing divestitures of chrome or android would've kneecapped google's entire distribution flywheel & google would've been in nightmare court battles just like
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
It's like a defendant robbed a series of banks and the court verdict found them guilty, then sentenced them to probation under which they may continue robbing banks but must share data on how they rob banks with competing bank robbers.
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
Judge Mehta ruled that Google has to share its *entire search index* with competitors like DuckDuckGo. DDG's reaction? “This is insufficient.” !?!? Gimme a break. [image]
@yegg Gabriel Weinberg on x
My statement on the US v Google remedies (quoted). Tl;dr 👎 for consumers. Monopoly business continues as usual for Google.
@joejerome Joseph Jerome on x
After 5 long years, a court found that Google had an unlawful monopoly and then chose to do little about it.
@leehepner Lee Hepner on x
The Google Search remedy is out, and it looks like the best possible outcome for one of the most notorious monopolists of the past quarter century. Shocking timidity from Judge Mehta in a moment that demands full force of the law. What a gut punch.
@modestproposal1 @modestproposal1 on x
I was wrong. Mehta admits allowing Google to continue making payments risks entrenching status quo. The big change between the end of the trial and now is GenAI funding, presenting Google with more formidable competition than they have had in decades “(except perhaps Microsoft)” …
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
Takeaways on the Google search antitrust remedies: 1. Longtime Google haters wanted Judge Mehta to throw the book at Google. But he was mindful of the precedent from the Microsoft case. 🧵 https://x.com/...
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
4. Google can't do exclusive search distribution deals, but it can still pay for non-exclusive deals. Google will have to adopt a ballot screen on Chrome and its own hardware, and can incentivize its partners to do the same.
@eric_seufert Eric Seufert on x
I guess Perplexity isn't going to own Chrome, after all. [image]
@sherman1890 @sherman1890 on x
GOOG remedy decision is out; going to take some time to digest. Decision talks about AI more than entire record thus far. J. Mehta is wisely aware that in the face of such a “game changer” a drastic structural remedy is not smart.
@jessicalessin Jessica Lessin on x
Watch closely how media companies cover Google over the next 24 hours. Interesting choice by @nytimes to lead with the data sharing — widely considered not that big a deal and expected. Google got a huge win with Chrome and Apple deal, with judge going out of the way to talk [ima…
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Judge Mehta is explicit that he's not trying to terminate Google's monopoly and that he's refusing to follow Supreme Court antitrust precedent on monopolization remedies.
@munster_gene Gene Munster on x
Good news for big tech, the regulator's bark is bigger than the bite. $GOOG up 8% on the ruling that it can keep Chrome. $AAPL up 3% on the fact it can keep the Google default search deal (15% of Apple's operating income). Apple also gets a nice win because the ruling forces G…
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Well my initial suspicion of Amit Mehta as a coward turned out to be correct.
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Judge Mehta's remedy is lawless. If a court finds that a company has engaged in monopolization, it *must* terminate the monopoly. This remedy is not legal and must be appealed.
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Big whiff by Judge Amit Mehta. Weak. No divestments, and no prohibition on Apple continuing to pay for search defaults. Mehta just decided that the court can let Google keep its monopoly. Classic Obama judge caution.
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
The one upside here is that Trump may not get involved, because there's nothing for him to trade away. Google got what it wanted.
@eric_seufert Eric Seufert on x
Seems like Google Search remedies are a nothingburger.
@loudmouthjulia Julia Alexander on x
Now I'm nowhere anything close to a lawyer, but it feels insane to my tiny brain that something could be ruled a monopoly, meaning remedies are to follow, and then nothing of real impact actually comes of the proposed solutions.
@hunterwalk.com @hunterwalk.com on bluesky
PERPLEXITY DEAL TEAM SCRAMBLING TO UP ITS OFFER [embedded post]
@juliaangwin.com Julia Angwin on bluesky
It's hard to restore competition in a market that has already been crushed — and I suspect the judge's cautious ruling requiring the very least from Google is not going to give competitors enough of a reason to jump back in to create search products. — www.nytimes.com/2025/09/0…
@emilprotalinski Emil Protalinski on bluesky
Who could have possibly predicted that Google wouldn't be forced to sell Chrome? Oh, right, everyone who reads more than headlines. [embedded post]
@mgsiegler.com M.G. Siegler on bluesky
Seemingly exactly as expected... [embedded post]
@harrymccracken@mastodon.social Harry McCracken on mastodon
We're nearing a half-century since the AT&T breakup, and since then, every tech antitrust case has ended with a whimper, not a bang, https://www.cnbc.com/...
r/technews r on reddit
Google stock jumps 8% after search giant avoids worst-case penalties in antitrust case
r/business r on reddit
Google stock jumps 8% after search giant avoids worst-case penalties in antitrust case
r/neoliberal r on reddit
Google dodges a $2.5T breakup
r/Android r on reddit
Google Not Required to Sell Chrome in Court Antitrust Ruling
r/ValueInvesting r on reddit
Google gets to keep Chrome but is barred from exclusive search deals, judge rules
r/google r on reddit
Google gets to keep Chrome but is barred from exclusive search deals, judge rules
r/Futurology r on reddit
Google gets to keep Chrome but is barred from exclusive search deals, judge rules
r/StockMarket r on reddit
Google gets to keep Chrome but is barred from exclusive search deals, judge rules
r/browsers r on reddit
Google gets to keep Chrome but is barred from exclusive search deals, judge rules
r/technology r on reddit
Google gets to keep Chrome but is barred from exclusive search deals, judge rules
@duckduckgo @duckduckgo on x
A statement from our CEO on the US v Google remedies: “We do not believe the remedies ordered by the court will force the changes necessary to adequately address Google's illegal behavior. Google will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, inc…
@econliberties @econliberties on x
“You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot.” “You don't find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly,” says @nhegde on Judge Mehta's failure to do his job. [ima…
@econliberties @econliberties on x
“This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed.” Our full statement here👇 https://www.economicliberties.us/ ...
@ddayen David Dayen on x
Judge Mehta on the proposed Chrome divestiture as a remedy in Google's monopolization case: 1-Chrome definitely contributes to Google's search monopoly 2-It's not even as radical as the Microsoft proposed remedy 3-It would hardly break up the company 4-But let's not do it [image]
@benbrodydc Ben Brody on x
On Google, @SenAmyKlobuchar tells me she and her staff are still looking at the remedies decision that will allow the company to keep owning Chrome but says “it is a sign of why we need legislation that would make it all clear.”
@tech_oversight @tech_oversight on x
Judge Mehta had a chance to uphold and enforce the law. Instead, he declined to hold Google accountable and allowed them to consolidate their power in the AI industry. This ruling falls short of this historic moment. Statement from @sachalouise here: https://techoversight.org/...
@bearlyai @bearlyai on x
The antitrust judge decided to let Google keep Chrome browser because “the emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case”, which was originally filed in 2020. The remediation document has 30 pages on the AI market and cites “OpenAI” (30x), “Perplexity” (24x), “Anthropic” [im…
@ilanstrauss Ilan Strauss on x
Wild. But this makes Google sharing its Search data - as required by the court - more important than ever. These AI companies don't have their own search indexes. OpenAI uses a third-party API that illegally scrapes Google search results.
@nhegde Nidhi Hegde on x
Today Judge Mehta confirmed what millions of working Americans already suspect, there's a different justice system for corporations found guilty of breaking the law versus them.
@gilbert Ben Gilbert on x
Wow. The court recognized the advantage Google has in paying browsers for distribution, but held off on banning it because of the new AI disruption threat they face. [image]
@turnernovak Turner Novak on x
Google got so cooked by OpenAI that it actually saved them
@signulll @signulll on x
in a wild plot twist, openai's rise literally saved google from being broken up. absolutely unreal. you couldn't script this if you tried. [image]
@patrickmoorhead Patrick Moorhead on x
Best, simple summary yet on $GOOG, Chrome and $AAPL. This is better for Apple than it is for Google, for sure. Apple could drive a fun, “highest bidder” game from month to month. Like Google Ads. 😀
@eff @eff on x
The court-ordered fix for Google's search monopoly is a big disappointment. No structural changes to Google. No ban on Google paying billions to Apple, others for default placement. Users' sensitive search queries for sale to competitors with uncertain privacy protections.
@divestech Dan Ives on x
Huge win for Google in DOJ court ruling and Apple massive search deal survives. Big overhang removed from both Google and Apple. 🏆🔥🐂
@senamyklobuchar Senator Amy Klobuchar on x
This ruling is a reminder of Google's sweeping power and why we need additional rules of the road for Big Tech. We must pass my bipartisan bill to stop platforms from unfairly preferencing their own products—which hurts consumers and entrepreneurs, and stifles innovation.
@signulll @signulll on x
jesus christ cupertino is probably celebrating harder than mountain view right now. if you're tim cook, you have to buy champagne right now because steve jobs in heaven likely saved apple a ton of short term pain. if the search deal had been killed, apple would've been
@waltlightshed Walter Piecyk on x
$AAPL generates over $100 billion of free cash flow a year but Judge Mehta believes losing out on the $20b+ payments from $GOOGL would be “crippling” 🤣🤣🤣 “Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial—in some cases, crippling—downstream harms to distri…
@kristakbrown Krista Brown on x
This is crazy. The judge ruled that Google used its monopoly power to maintain dominance. But in the remedies, says that Google can keep paying Apple $20B+ to be the default search because otherwise Apple will be harmed... [image]
@susanlitv Susan Li on x
#Google rallies 5% #Apple rallies 2.5% Google will likely keep paying Apple $15B to $20B a year to be the iPhone's default search engine [image]
@alexeheath Alex Heath on x
slam dunk result for Google with US ruling that it doesn't have to sell Chrome / stop paying for search placement https://www.courtlistener.com/ ...
@bdsams Brad Sams on x
The biggest fallout here is likely Apple, who just lost a $20b stream of cash for setting a default.
@carlquintanilla Carl Quintanilla on bluesky
The outcome is “a home run for the status quo,” MoffettNathanson analysts said, adding that “being found guilty of monopolistic behavior yet facing such a benign remedy is particularly favorable” .. — @reuters.com $GOOGL — www.reuters.com/sustainabili...
@ernie.tedium.co Ernie Smith on bluesky
Initial take here: This feels to me like the best solution to the mess with Google—make the search a bit more like a standard, but leave Chrome alone, because there was a real risk selling Chrome would have caused bigger problems than it resolved — www.nytimes.com/2025/09/02/t.…
@stevekovach Steve Kovach on bluesky
And Apple stock's up 4% after hours because it can keep collecting free money from Google in the search deal. [embedded post]
r/apple r on reddit
Apple stock surges on U.S. ruling that spares default search deal with Google ("Apple stock surged in after-hours trading, up $7.48 (+3.26%) to $237.20.")

Chronicles

US v. Google: a US federal judge rules that Google will not be required to divest Chrome or Android, but it must share Search data with rivals; GOOG jumps 8%+

Related Coverage

Discussion