By Digiday Editors  •  September 2, 2025  •

Ivy Liu

Justice Amit Mehta issued the orders today (Sept. 2) in a Washington D.C. court after initially ruling against Google almost a year ago, with lawyers for both sides pleading their cases after remedies were proposed in November 2024 when the Justice Department formally tabled its motion to force the sale of Chrome.

Furthermore, Google must share certain search index and user-interaction data (not ads data) with “Qualified Competitors” and offer them search and text ads syndication services on commercial terms. This is to help rivals build competitive offerings.

Additionally, Google must disclose material changes to its ad auctions to ensure transparency in search ad pricing and to prevent covert price manipulation.

“Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system,” reads the final judgment, which concludes that the DOJ “overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets.”

However, it goes on to note how, “Google will be barred from entering or maintaining any exclusive contract relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app.”

The recommendations were made after the presiding judge found that Google had unlawfully maintained a monopoly in general search through exclusionary contracts with Apple, Mozilla, and Android manufacturers, thereby restricting the distribution of rival search engines, last year.

In the same ruling, Mehta also found that Google had illegally preserved its search advertising monopoly by tying default agreements to ad revenue sharing, thereby foreclosing competition from Bing, DuckDuckGo, and other challengers.

Of course, Google has already announced its intention to appeal the ruling in its search monopoly case, with its legal team understood to have been awaiting the final remedies judgment before formally filing the requisite motions.

During the initial trial proceedings, Google’s defense argued that its success stems from offering the best search product, and that distribution deals were lawful and non-exclusive, allowing consumers to choose Google over rivals without coercion. The defendant’s advocates also argued that remedies pursued by the government were contrary to the spirit of U.S. antitrust legislation. 

For example, non-profits such as the American Enterprise Institute – an entity whose funding is largely unknown, but is widely acknowledged as leaning toward the pro-business, or free enterprise, side of the political spectrum — argue the instinct to break up Google is driven by a desire to “punish” Google. Advocates of such a viewpoint say that such a course of action has no basis in law; after all, how could “… government lawyers succeed where the best tech minds have not”? 

Additionally, Google’s defense team used the remedies phase of proceedings to display how its emerging rivals, like Microsoft, OpenAI, and Perplexity, would convince the court that its search monopoly faces exponentially increased competition with the emergence of such AI players. Such voices have additionally argued that a defenestration of Google’s search offering would lead to increased costs for consumers.

Separately, the remedies phase of Google’s antitrust investigation involving its ad tech suite, where it also faces a potential forced divestiture by the court, is set to begin on Sept. 22 formally.