Google just dodged one of the biggest bullets in tech history. Federal Judge Amit Mehta ruled Tuesday that the search giant won’t be forced to sell its Chrome browser, dealing a significant blow to the Justice Department’s efforts to break up the company.

The decision caps off one of the most closely watched antitrust cases since the Microsoft breakup attempt in the early 2000s. For Google, this represents far more than a legal victory—it’s validation of the company’s core business strategy.

The Stakes Were Enormous

Chrome handles nearly 40% of Google’s search volume in the United States, making it a cornerstone of the company’s $300 billion advertising empire. Losing Chrome would have been like forcing McDonald’s to sell its kitchens while keeping the restaurants.

The Justice Department had proposed that Google be forced to sell its popular Chrome web browser and share some of the data it collects to create its search results. They also wanted to ban Google from paying for search engine defaults—agreements that generated over $26 billion in revenue in 2021.

The government’s case wasn’t weak. Judge Mehta concluded last year that Google violated section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, finding the company maintained an illegal monopoly through its distribution agreements.

What Google Still Has to Give Up

The ruling wasn’t a complete victory for Google. The company faces several restrictions that will reshape how it operates:

Google will be barred from entering into or maintaining exclusive contracts related to the distribution of services like Chrome, Search, the Google Assistant, and its Gemini app. This means no more exclusive deals that lock competitors out of key distribution channels.

The company must also share certain search data with qualified competitors. Google will be required to share some of its search data with competitors, though the judge narrowed the amount and types of data. This data sharing could help smaller search engines, such as DuckDuckGo, and emerging AI companies build better products.

Interestingly, Google can still pay partners for placement and preloading of its products. Google also will not be prohibited from making payments to distribution partners for preloading or placement of search, Chrome, or generative AI products. This preserves a significant revenue stream for both Google and its partners.

Why AI Changed Everything

Judge Mehta wrote that “the emergence of generative AI has changed the course of this case”. The rapid development of ChatGPT, Perplexity, and other AI search alternatives shifted the competitive landscape during the trial.

Apple executive Eddie Cue told the judge that search volumes through Apple’s Safari browser had declined for the first time in 22 years. This bombshell testimony suggested Google’s search dominance might already be eroding naturally.

The judge recognized that breaking up Google in an era of rapid AI development could backfire. Rather than promoting competition, it might handicap American companies in the global race for AI supremacy.

Market Response Tells the Story

Alphabet shares popped 8% in extended trading as investors celebrated what they viewed as minimal consequences. The market’s reaction reveals how much worse this could have been for Google.

Analysts see the ruling as favorable for both Google and its partners. Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives considers the ruling to be a win for both Apple and Google, particularly following reports that the two companies may partner to incorporate Gemini into Siri.

The Broader Implications

This decision marks a significant turning point in how courts approach technology regulation. Unlike previous antitrust cases that relied heavily on historical precedent, Judge Mehta acknowledged the inherent challenge of being “overly prescriptive amid the industry’s changing landscape”.

The judge wrote that “unlike the typical case where the court’s job is to resolve a dispute based on historic facts, here the court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future. Not exactly a judge’s forte”.

This reasoning suggests courts may be more cautious about drastic remedies in fast-moving tech sectors, particularly as AI reshapes entire industries.

What Comes Next

Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater said the Justice Department “will continue to review the opinion to consider the Department’s options and next steps regarding seeking additional relief”. An appeal seems likely, meaning this case could drag on for years.

Google faces additional antitrust challenges beyond search. In April 2025, a separate judge found Google liable for unlawfully monopolizing the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets. These cases could result in forced asset sales if Google loses.

The Chrome victory gives Google breathing room to navigate these other challenges while maintaining its core search business intact. For a company that generated over $200 billion in search revenue last year, keeping Chrome means keeping the engine that drives its entire advertising machine.

The tech industry will be watching closely as other major players—Apple, Amazon, and Meta—face their own antitrust battles. Google’s success in avoiding a breakup could signal that the era of aggressive tech regulation is reaching practical limits, at least when it comes to forced asset sales.

For now, Google can continue building its AI future with its most valuable assets intact. Whether that future includes maintaining search dominance in an AI-driven world remains the more interesting question.