Alphabet’s Google scored a partial victory in Washington after a US federal judge ruled it will not be forced to sell its Chrome browser or Android operating system as part of a landmark antitrust case.
But the court stopped short of giving the tech giant a free pass, ordering it to share search data with rivals and loosen restrictions on exclusivity deals.
The decision comes nearly a year after Judge Amit Mehta found Google guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly in internet search through multi-billion-dollar agreements with device makers such as Apple and Samsung.
Relief for Google
Investors cheered the outcome, with Alphabet shares surging more than seven per cent following the news, with analysts quick to brand the ruling a “regulatory bullet dodged”.
Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell said: “That’s a big win for Alphabet and suggests other big tech firms facing similar threats might also secure a more favourable outcome than originally feared”.
Derren Nathan, head of equity research at Hargreaves Lansdown, also dubbed the judgement “far milder than feared”.
He noted that Alphabet not only retains Chrome but can continue its lucrative deal to pay Apple to keep Google as the default search engine on iPhones – worth an estimated $20bn (14.92bn) annually.
Still, the ruling was not a clean sweep.
Judge Mehta barred Google from maintaining exclusive contracts for distributing its services and ordered it to share parts of its search index with rivals, including AI-driven platforms.
That could give competitors a long-awaited foothold in a market where Google captures roughly 90 per cent of US search queries.
A ‘failure’ or strategic compromise?
Critics argue the ruling does too little to address the harms of monopoly power.
The American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), a Washington advocacy group, branded the outcome “a complete failure”.
Executive director Nidhi Hegde said: “You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot”.
Others see pragmatism rather than leniency. By rejecting the Department of Justice’s call for a structural break-up, Mehta signalled that remedies must be workable in fast-moving markets, particularly as generative AI reshapes the future of search.
In his ruling, he admitted courts are “not exactly equipped with a crystal ball” to predict how innovation will unfold.
That nuance matters; Analysts warn that while Google avoided the most extreme penalties, the obligation to share data could still erode its advantage.
“The data-sharing requirements pose a competitive risk to Google but not right away”, said Deepak Mathivanan, an analyst at Cantor Fitzgerald. “It will take time for consumers to embrace these new experiences.”
Advertisers, too, are reading the judgment as more of a tweak than a reset. Matt Wilké, head of digital partnerships at Mediaplus UK, said: “Google’s big fort on the hill is intact, but this ruling provides global advertisers and UK regulators a lever to chip away at default dominance”.
Apple also emerged with reasons to smile.
Its long-standing agreement with Google to keep its search engine as the iPhone default remains intact, at least for now.
Nathan suggested the ruling could even boost Apple’s leverage: “The renegotiation window plus the end of exclusivity clauses could give Apple more optionality down the line”.
Bigger battles ahead
For Google, the immediate cloud over Chrome has lifted, but the company is far from out of the regulatory woods.
It still faces a separate antitrust trial over its dominance in online advertising tech later this year, and appeals in the Chrome case could stretch on for years – possibly to the Supreme Court.
Sceptics also note that these remedies could prove toothless if Google continues to dominate while rivals struggle to scale.
The Department of Justice (DoJ), for its part, insisted the ruling “recognises the need to pry open the market for general search services”, and prevent Google from using the same tactics in AI that it used in search.
Whether that ambition becomes reality remains to be seen. For now, Google’s investors are celebrating – but regulators, rivals, and privacy advocates will be watching closely.