Google on Friday urged a US federal judge not to force it to separate its Chrome browser from its search business, pushing back against proposals meant to curb its influence over online search.
This plea comes as attorneys from both sides presented their final arguments in a high-stakes antitrust case before US District Judge Amit Mehta, who is now weighing what corrective measures—if any—should be taken following a 2023 ruling that found Google had unlawfully monopolized the search market.
The US Department of Justice (DoJ), seeking to rein in what it views as Google’s anti-competitive practices, has asked the court to consider requiring the tech giant to divest from Chrome. They argue that the increasing power of artificial intelligence could further entrench Google’s role as the dominant gateway to the internet, making such a measure necessary to allow competitors a fair chance.
In addition to spinning off Chrome, government attorneys also want Google to be prohibited from entering into exclusive agreements with major partners like Apple and Samsung—contracts that were central to the original lawsuit. These arrangements have made Google’s search tools the default on a wide array of devices, contributing significantly to its dominance.
Final oral arguments were held Friday in a Washington courtroom after three weeks of trial testimony concluded earlier in May. The day was devoted to detailed legal arguments, with both sides vigorously defending their interpretations of the law.
Google’s lawyer, John Schmidtlein, maintained that the government failed to show any real-world evidence that consumers would have used a different search engine if these exclusive agreements hadn’t existed. He pointed to Verizon as an example, noting that even though the telecom provider owns Yahoo! and had no binding contract with Google, it still chose to install Chrome on its devices.
Among the roughly 100 witnesses heard during the trial, Schmidtlein noted that none expressed a preference for installing rival search engines such as Microsoft’s Bing—even when hypothetically granted more freedom to do so.
Push for Competition
DoJ attorney David Dahlquist countered that companies like Apple had actively sought more flexibility in their dealings with Google but were consistently denied. He cited Apple’s repeated requests for options beyond default agreements, highlighting how those arrangements had stifled choice.
Google, however, argues that the government’s recommendations go far beyond the original scope of the case. The company sees the call for a Chrome divestiture—and the possibility of a forced sale of Android—as dangerous overreaches.
Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute, backed Google’s position, warning that breaking up Chrome or ending default agreements would harm innovation, disadvantage smaller firms, and reduce the quality of products available to users.
Schmidtlein emphasized that more than 80 percent of Chrome users are based outside the United States, suggesting that any mandated breakup would carry global consequences. He insisted that a Chrome browser spun off from Google would be a mere shadow of its current version, potentially hurting consumers rather than helping them.
Changing Landscape with AI
The debate unfolds at a pivotal time, as competitors like Microsoft, ChatGPT, and Perplexity introduce generative AI tools that challenge Google’s dominance in web search. Although the original case against Google was filed five years ago—before ChatGPT entered the scene—AI’s sudden rise is now a critical factor.
Google, along with its competitors, is investing heavily in AI and integrating it into its search functions and broader ecosystem. During the trial, Apple’s Vice President of Services, Eddy Cue, revealed that traffic to Google’s search engine on Apple devices declined in April—the first time that had happened in over 20 years. Cue attributed the dip to increasing competition from AI-powered services like ChatGPT and Perplexity.
Judge Mehta questioned whether Google’s exclusive access to certain user data, such as click and query information, should be shared with rivals as part of any remedies imposed. DoJ attorney Adam Severt emphasized that the government isn’t aiming to cripple Google but wants to foster a competitive environment.
“We’re not looking to kneecap Google,” Severt told the court. “But we are looking to make sure someone can compete with Google.”
Schmidtlein, however, argued that the government’s proposed data-sharing remedies would force Google to hand over not just user data, but proprietary information that reflects years of internal innovation and engineering.
“There are countless algorithms that Google engineers have invented that have nothing to do with click and query data,” he said. “Their remedy says we want to be on par with all of your ingenuity, and, respectfully your honor, that is not proportional to the conduct of this case.”
As Judge Mehta considers the final decision, the outcome could reshape not only Google’s future, but also the broader digital landscape at a time of rapid technological transformation.
What You Should Know
Judge Amit Mehta, presiding over the case, will ultimately determine whether Google’s dominance in search should be curtailed through structural remedies like the divestiture of Chrome.
His decision could have profound implications on competition, innovation, and user choice in the digital economy—especially as artificial intelligence rapidly changes how people search for information online.
