The latest court ruling, issued on September 3, establishes that Google is not required to sell Chrome.

Federal Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled that Google is not obliged to sell either its Chrome browser or its Android operating system, considering that such a remedy would be “excessive, disruptive, and high-risk.”

Instead, Google will no longer be allowed to maintain exclusive contracts that reinforced its dominant position—for example, in Chrome, Assistant, Gemini, or pre-installation agreements.

The company will also be required to share certain search data (such as user interactions and search indexes) with competitors like Bing or DuckDuckGo.

Following the ruling, Alphabet (Google) shares rose by about 7%, while Apple stock gained 3%, as it retains its lucrative agreement to remain the default search engine.

The decision also underscores the emerging role of artificial intelligence (AI) as a competitive force. By sharing its data, Google could enable other companies to develop more competitive browsers, search engines, or chatbots, although adoption may take time. According to analysts, this mandate represents a long-term risk for Google, though not an immediate one.

The lawsuit began in 2020 with a formal complaint from the U.S. Department of Justice, which in August 2024 had already declared that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in the search and advertising markets. After that monopoly verdict, the case moved into the remedies phase. In November 2024, the government proposed ambitious measures such as the sale of Chrome, the restructuring of Android, and broad data sharing; however, the judge ultimately opted for a more balanced approach.

The ruling will take effect over the coming years, although Google has already announced it will appeal, which could delay the implementation of the measures.

The Department of Justice and the states leading the case are still assessing whether this decision is sufficient or if they will file appeals. On the other hand, the ruling avoids the need to impose a system of external monitors or technological supervisors—as was done in previous cases like Microsoft—although it does establish firm limits for the next six years.