Judge Mehta prepares to rule on Google Chrome divestiture amid dual antitrust losses

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta concluded the landmark antitrust remedies trial against Google on May 9, 2025, and is expected to deliver his decision by August 2025 on whether the tech giant must divest its Chrome browser. The Justice Department's proposed remedies, submitted on March 7, 2025, represent the most significant antitrust enforcement action against a technology company since the Microsoft case of the 1990s.

Google now faces potential breakup on multiple fronts following two major antitrust defeats. The search case stems from Judge Mehta's August 2024 ruling that Google had unlawfully maintained monopolies in U.S. general search services and general search text advertising markets. Meanwhile, on April 17, 2025, the Antitrust Division prevailed in its second monopolization case against Google when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Google violated antitrust law by monopolizing open-web digital advertising markets.

AdTech monopoly ruling compounds Google's legal challenges

Today the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice prevailed in its second monopolization case against Google. According to the Court, Google "harmed Google's publishing customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web."

"This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. "This Department of Justice will continue taking bold legal action to protect the American people from encroachments on free speech and free markets by tech companies."

The Virginia court's decision followed a 15-day trial in September 2024. In January 2023, the Justice Department, along with attorneys general of several states, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Google for monopolizing key digital advertising technologies that website publishers depend on to buy and sell ads reaching millions of customers. As alleged in the complaint, through a series of acquisitions and anticompetitive auction manipulation, Google subverted competition for over 15 years.

The AdTech case centers on Google's control of the "ad tech stack" - the interconnected tools that facilitate digital advertising transactions between publishers and advertisers. Google operates on multiple sides of these transactions simultaneously, creating what the court found to be anticompetitive conflicts of interest.

Dual divestiture threats target core business operations

Google faces potential breakup demands across both cases. In the search case, the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of 38 state attorneys general maintain their demand that Google divest its Chrome browser. In the AdTech case, the DOJ has proposed sweeping remedies including complete divestiture of Google's ad exchange (AdX) and phased divestiture of Google's publisher ad server (DFP).

Max Gulker, senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation, writes that DFP and AdX alone generated 12 percent ($42 billion) of Alphabet's revenue last year. Compulsory divestiture from these ad tech products could represent a dramatic hit to Google's bottom line beyond the Chrome divestiture implications.

The stark differences between Google's and the government's proposed remedies in the AdTech case highlight enormous stakes. The Department of Justice and state plaintiffs have proposed remedies centered around divestiture—forcing Google to sell off key parts of its advertising technology business. Their plan includes complete divestiture of Google's ad exchange (AdX), phased divestiture of Google's publisher ad server (DFP), beginning with open-sourcing the auction logic, then selling the remaining parts, prohibitions against Google using its advertising data across products, requirements to share certain data with competitors, and appointment of trustees to monitor Google's compliance.

During a May 2 hearing in the AdTech case, government attorneys told the court there are "tons of cases, Supreme Court cases that talk about the need for divestiture," and argued the law allows divestiture "even when that asset may have been lawfully acquired to begin with."

Chrome divestiture remains centerpiece of search case remedies

Chrome commands approximately 61% of the U.S. browser market according to StatCounter data. Chrome serves as a critical access point for Google's search engine and advertising business, enabling the company to track user activity and direct traffic to its services, including its Gemini AI product.

Parsa Tabriz, Google's vice president of engineering and general manager for Chrome, warned that ordering the divestment of the browser would lead to significant performance issues for consumers. During her testimony, Tabriz highlighted Google's substantial investment in the Chromium open-source browser project, contributing up to 90% compared to other browser companies like Opera, which totals less than 10%.

Technical feasibility remains a contested issue. However, new research addresses key technical questions about Google's browser separation. A July 2025 report from the Knight-Georgetown Institute concluded that separating Chrome from Google is technically feasible, with independent browser operations capable of serving four billion users competitively.

Android divestiture contingent on market competition

While the initial proposal gave Google the option to divest Android immediately, the revised version makes Android divestiture contingent on the remedies proving insufficient. The proposal states that if, at least five years after the judgment's entry, plaintiffs demonstrate that monopolized markets have not experienced substantial increased competition, then Google must divest Android.

Google could avoid Android divestiture by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that its ownership or control of Android did not significantly contribute to the lack of a substantial increase in competition.

AI investment restrictions softened in final proposal

One significant change from the initial proposal involves Google's investments in artificial intelligence companies. The DOJ is "no longer seeking the mandatory divestiture of Google's AI investments in favor of a prior notification for future investments". An initial Justice Department proposal for remedies included forcing Google to pull out of its investments in AI, which includes the more than $3 billion it's poured into Anthropic.

In March, however, the DOJ changed tack, dropping the divestiture requirement after recognizing that barring Google completely from AI investments could cause unintended consequences in the developing AI space.

Data sharing requirements target search dominance

Central to the proposed judgment is the requirement for Google to share what the court identified as the "essential raw material" for competition: data at scale. For ten years, Google would need to make its search index available to competitors at marginal cost and provide rivals access to both user-side and advertising data, with appropriate privacy safeguards.

These provisions aim to address the "data feedback loops" that have helped entrench Google's dominance, according to the DOJ's filing. The proposal would deny Google exclusive control of what the government characterizes as ill-gotten gains by requiring the company to share targeted portions of its search index, user, and ads data with competitors.

Default search agreement prohibitions at center of case

The remedies proposal continues to target the exclusive distribution agreements that formed the core of the government's case. The package of remedies continues to propose a ban on all search-related payments to distribution partners, including Apple and Android partners.

The crux of the government's argument is that Google has unfair control of a huge market share in U.S. search, a valuation eclipsing $1 trillion. The DOJ's original lawsuit said the company struck multibillion-dollar deals with Apple and Samsung to make sure its search engine was the default on their phones' web browsers, effectively boxing out Google's rivals.

Google paid $26.3 billion in 2021 alone to ensure its search engine remained the default option across various platforms. Testimony from Apple's Eddie Cue and Mozilla's CFO Eric Muhlheim revealed the financial stakes of these deals, with both companies expressing concerns over the potential fallout if Google's payments were reduced or eliminated.

Google argues remedies exceed legal violations

John E. Schmidtlein, a lawyer for Google, argued in opening statements that the DOJ's list of remedies in this case is just a "wishlist for competitors", and that it will enable them to get resources that took Google decades to develop. Google views the Chrome divestiture demand as its most prohibitive and "most extreme" request.

Google said in a blog post on Monday that such a move is not in the best interest of the country as the global battle for supremacy in artificial intelligence rapidly intensifies. The company named China's DeepSeek as an emerging AI competitor in arguing against the DOJ's proposal.

"At trial we will show how DOJ's unprecedented proposals go miles beyond the Court's decision, and would hurt America's consumers, economy, and technological leadership," Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote.

Technical oversight committee proposed for compliance

To ensure compliance with the final judgment, the proposal establishes a five-person Technical Committee with expertise in software engineering, information retrieval, artificial intelligence, economics, and behavioral science. This committee would monitor Google's compliance, handle complaints, and have access to Google's source code and algorithms.

The proposal also requires Google to designate an internal Compliance Officer responsible for administering Google's antitrust compliance program and ensuring adherence to the final judgment.

Financial impact spans Google's core revenue streams

Google Services accounted for 87 percent ($84 billion) of Alphabet's (Google's parent company) revenue in the fourth quarter of 2024. The combined impact of both antitrust cases threatens multiple revenue streams simultaneously. Google includes revenue from advertising, Android, and Chrome under "Google Services" in its financial statements, making it difficult to calculate the precise impact of the search case remedies.

The AdTech divestiture could prove particularly damaging to Google's financial position. According to Max Gulker's analysis, DFP and AdX generated $42 billion in revenue last year. Combined with the potential Chrome divestiture and restrictions on search distribution agreements worth billions annually, Google faces the possibility of losing control over key components of its integrated advertising ecosystem.

According to recent financial data, Google's parent company Alphabet reported $48.5 billion in "Search & Other" revenue for Q2 2024, representing 57% of total revenue. The dual cases target both the search advertising that generates this revenue and the underlying ad technology infrastructure that facilitates digital advertising transactions.

Industry observers predict judicial restraint despite monopoly findings

Some industry observers express skepticism about the scope of potential remedies despite the clear legal victories against Google. Sean Godier predicted on social media that "Mehta will go super light (even though he doesn't want to) because it will be seen as a Trump victory (even though this started years ago). He won't want to mess up his spot at DC cocktail parties."

This sentiment reflects broader concerns within the tech industry about the political implications of major antitrust enforcement actions. The cases span multiple presidential administrations, having originated under Trump, continued under Biden, and now potentially concluding under the current administration.

The complexity of implementing structural remedies adds to uncertainty about enforcement outcomes. PPC Land's recent coverage revealed extensive witness lists and hundreds of technical exhibits prepared for Google's September 2025 AdTech remedies trial, demonstrating the intricate nature of digital advertising market structures that courts must navigate.

The precedential impact extends internationally, with regulators worldwide watching U.S. proceedings closely. PPC Land noted that the August 2024 search monopoly ruling marked the first major antitrust decision against a Big Tech company in recent years, potentially setting precedent for ongoing cases against Meta, Amazon, and Apple.

The case has divided technology policy experts on the appropriate scope of antitrust remedies. Jennifer Huddleston, senior fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the proposed remedies could detrimentally impact consumers in several ways. Consumers may encounter more friction to select default browsers or search options and face higher costs or less successful advertising reach, particularly for small businesses.

John Newman, an expert in antitrust law at the University of Miami, said the current case against Google could create another major shift in the environment for tech innovation. If the judge implements everything the government requests, "the landscape could look pretty radically different if you are, say, a gen AI startup."

The enforcement momentum continues building with additional private litigation. PPC Land reported that advertisers filed the first collateral estoppel motion on June 20, 2025, seeking to prevent Google from relitigating monopoly findings already established in the Virginia court's decision.

The comprehensive nature of the government's evidence has surprised industry observers. PPC Land's analysis of court filings revealed internal Google documents showing secret projects "Bernanke," "Poirot," and "Bell" for market manipulation between 2013-2016, providing unprecedented insight into the company's competitive strategies.

Consumer litigation is also expanding beyond government enforcement. PPC Land covered how the Northern District of California allowed consumer antitrust claims to proceed in January 2025, with plaintiffs alleging Google's default contracts prevented emergence of privacy-focused and ad-free search alternatives.

Why this matters for the marketing community

The dual Google antitrust cases represent a watershed moment for digital marketing professionals who have built campaigns around the tech giant's dominant search and advertising ecosystem. According to PPC Land's previous coverage, Google's control of approximately 90% of the overall online search market and 95% on smartphones has created a concentrated environment where marketing success often depends on Google's platforms.

Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next and a leading advocate for publisher rights, emphasized the broader implications of these cases for the media ecosystem. "We'll find out if Google will have to stop abusing market power and let publishers opt out of AI training while still participating in its search monopoly and if Chrome has to be divested, too," Kint stated. "Appeal is certain but injunctions to stop harms matter."

Kint's observation highlights how these cases extend beyond traditional antitrust concerns to emerging issues around artificial intelligence and publisher consent. The proposed remedies would give publishers more control over how their content is used for AI training while maintaining access to search traffic, addressing a key concern as AI reshapes digital content distribution.

The AdTech monopoly ruling adds another layer of complexity for performance marketers. Google's control of the ad tech stack has enabled seamless campaign management across search, display, and programmatic advertising. Potential divestiture of Google's ad exchange (AdX) and publisher ad server (DFP) could fragment these capabilities, forcing marketers to work with multiple vendors and potentially increasing operational complexity.

For PPC practitioners, the potential Chrome divestiture could fundamentally alter how users discover and interact with search advertising. Chrome's integration with Google's advertising products enables sophisticated targeting and measurement capabilities that have become standard in performance marketing. A separated Chrome browser might operate with different data collection and sharing practices, potentially disrupting established attribution models and audience targeting strategies.

The AdTech case implications extend to programmatic advertising strategies. Google's simultaneous operation of buyer-side, seller-side, and marketplace tools has created integrated workflows that many advertisers rely on for campaign optimization. Court-ordered divestiture could require marketers to rebuild programmatic strategies using disaggregated tools from multiple providers.

The proposed data sharing requirements could create new opportunities for competitors to offer alternative advertising platforms with access to Google's search index and user data. This development might diversify the digital advertising landscape beyond Google's current dominance, potentially offering marketers more platform options and competitive pricing.

However, the transition period could create significant uncertainty for marketing budgets and campaign performance. As PPC Land has documented, Google's current proposal focuses on modifying search distribution agreements rather than accepting broader structural changes, suggesting the company will continue fighting comprehensive remedies.

The legal precedent being established extends beyond Google to the broader digital advertising ecosystem. PPC Land's coverage of the AdTech monopoly ruling detailed how the court found Google's 20% ad exchange fee has been supracompetitive for over a decade, suggesting more competitive markets could lead to lower take rates across the ecosystem.

The private litigation following these government victories adds another layer of complexity. PPC Land reported that OpenX Technologies filed a comprehensive follow-on lawsuit seeking substantial damages after the Virginia court's landmark ruling, representing the latest private action to emerge following the DOJ's successful prosecution.

The timing coincides with Google's broader strategic shifts, including its decision to maintain third-party cookies in Chrome as reported by PPC Land, which came just days after the AdTech monopoly ruling. These interconnected legal and policy developments create a complex environment where marketing professionals must prepare for potential fundamental changes to digital advertising infrastructure while managing current campaign performance within Google's ecosystem.

The industry impact extends to emerging technologies as well. PPC Land's analysis showed how AI search company Perplexity was asked to testify in the proceedings, highlighting how these cases affect not just current market dynamics but future technological development in search and advertising.

Timeline

• January 2023: DOJ files AdTech antitrust lawsuit against Google
• October 20, 2020: DOJ and initial group of states file antitrust lawsuit against Google 
• December 17, 2020: Colorado-led coalition of states files related lawsuit
• August 5, 2024: Judge Mehta finds Google liable for monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act
• September 2024: AdTech antitrust trial concludes after 15-day proceeding
• October 8, 2024: DOJ unveils framework of potential remedies including potential breakup
• November 20, 2024: Initial proposed final judgment filed
• December 20, 2024: Google submits targeted contract changes proposal 
• January 16, 2025: Northern California court allows consumer lawsuit to proceed
• March 7, 2025: Revised proposed final judgment filed
• April 17, 2025: Court rules Google violated antitrust law by monopolizing open-web digital advertising markets
• April 21, 2025: Search case remedies trial begins
• May 9, 2025: Remedies trial concludes
• June 8, 2025: Former Google executive publishes book exposing advertising monopoly strategies
• June 20, 2025: First private collateral estoppel motion filed against Google
• July 1, 2025: Knight-Georgetown Institute releases technical feasibility report on Chrome divestiture
• August 4, 2025: OpenX files follow-on antitrust lawsuit seeking damages
• August 15, 2025: Court documents reveal extensive evidence for AdTech remedies trial
• August 2025: Expected ruling from Judge Mehta in search case
• September 22, 2025: AdTech remedies trial scheduled to begin

PPC Land explains

Divestiture

Divestiture represents the most severe antitrust remedy available to courts, requiring companies to sell off business units or assets to restore market competition. In Google's case, the DOJ seeks forced sale of Chrome browser and potentially Android operating system, along with advertising technology components like AdX and DFP. This structural remedy aims to eliminate Google's ability to use integrated products anticompetitively, though Google argues such measures would harm innovation and consumer experience while benefiting competitors rather than restoring genuine market competition.

Monopolization

Monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act requires both monopoly power in a relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power through anticompetitive conduct. Courts found Google monopolized general search services (90% market share), search text advertising (95% on smartphones), publisher ad servers, and ad exchanges for open-web display advertising. The legal standard distinguishes between monopoly achieved through superior products versus exclusionary practices, with Google's exclusive distribution agreements and bundling strategies deemed anticompetitive rather than merit-based.

Chrome Browser

Chrome commands approximately 61% of the U.S. browser market and serves as the cornerstone of Google's data collection and user engagement strategy. The browser enables sophisticated tracking of signed-in users across websites, provides direct access to Google's search engine and advertising services, and serves as the distribution mechanism for Google's AI product Gemini. Chrome's divestiture would fundamentally alter how Google monetizes web traffic, though technical feasibility studies suggest independent operation remains viable with appropriate court-imposed transition frameworks.

AdTech Stack

The advertising technology stack encompasses the interconnected tools that facilitate digital advertising transactions between publishers seeking to monetize content and advertisers seeking audience reach. Google's control spans publisher ad servers (DFP), ad exchanges (AdX), and demand-side platforms, creating what critics characterize as conflicts of interest similar to a bank owning the stock exchange. The integrated nature of these tools enabled Google to manipulate auctions through projects like "Poirot" while charging supracompetitive fees that courts found harmed both publishers and advertisers.

Default Search Agreements

Exclusive distribution agreements represent the core anticompetitive conduct in the search case, with Google paying $26.3 billion in 2021 alone to ensure default placement on Apple devices, Android smartphones, and browsers like Firefox. These agreements effectively foreclosed rival search engines from accessing the most valuable distribution channels, creating barriers to entry that courts found unlawfully maintained Google's search monopoly. The proposed remedies would prohibit such exclusive payments while requiring device manufacturers to present users with choice screens for search engine selection.

Android Operating System

Android powers the majority of smartphones globally and provides Google with control over the mobile ecosystem that courts found reinforces search dominance. Google's bundling requirements force device manufacturers to include Google Search, Chrome, and Play Store together, preventing competition from alternative search providers. The proposed remedies include either immediate Android divestiture or behavioral restrictions with contingent divestiture if competition fails to increase substantially within five years, recognizing the operating system's central role in maintaining Google's integrated monopolies.

Data Sharing Requirements

The proposed remedies mandate Google share its search index, user data, and advertising information with competitors for ten years, addressing what courts identified as the "essential raw material" for search engine competition. These requirements aim to eliminate the data feedback loops that entrench Google's dominance, where superior data quality from high usage creates better search results that attract more users. Privacy safeguards would protect individual user information while enabling competitors to access aggregated data patterns necessary for building competitive search engines.

Technical Committee Oversight

Implementation of comprehensive antitrust remedies requires ongoing supervision to prevent circumvention and ensure compliance with court orders. The proposed five-person Technical Committee would possess expertise in software engineering, information retrieval, artificial intelligence, economics, and behavioral science, with authority to access Google's source code and algorithms. This oversight mechanism draws precedent from the Microsoft antitrust case while adapting to the technical complexity of modern digital platforms and their potential for subtle anticompetitive manipulation.

Sherman Act Violations

The Sherman Act of 1890 forms the foundation of U.S. antitrust law, with Section 1 prohibiting restraints of trade and Section 2 forbidding monopolization. Google's violations span both sections through illegal tying arrangements that force publisher use of multiple Google products and willful acquisition of monopoly power through exclusionary conduct rather than superior performance. The dual liability findings across search and advertising markets represent one of the most significant antitrust enforcement actions against a technology company since the Microsoft case of the 1990s.

Market Concentration

Digital advertising markets exhibit extreme concentration that enables supracompetitive pricing and reduced innovation, with Google's integrated control spanning multiple market levels from search advertising to programmatic display. The company's ability to operate as buyer, seller, and marketplace simultaneously creates structural conflicts that courts found impossible to address through behavioral remedies alone. Market concentration analysis revealed Google's 20% ad exchange fees remained supracompetitive for over a decade, demonstrating how monopoly power translates directly into consumer and publisher harm through inflated costs and reduced service quality.

Summary

Who: U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta will decide on DOJ remedies in the search case, while Judge Leonie M. Brinkema will rule on AdTech remedies in Virginia. The Department of Justice and multiple state attorneys general are seeking comprehensive remedies across both cases, while Google opposes the proposals through its legal team.

What: Federal courts will rule on whether Google must divest its Chrome browser, modify Android operations, share search data with competitors, end exclusive distribution agreements, and divest key advertising technology assets including AdX and DFP. The cases address Google's monopolization of U.S. general search services, search text advertising markets, and open-web digital advertising markets.

When: Judge Mehta is expected to rule by August 2025 in the search case following the conclusion of the remedies trial on May 9, 2025. The AdTech case ruling timeline follows the April 17, 2025 liability decision. The search case began with the original DOJ lawsuit filed in October 2020, while the AdTech case was filed in January 2023.

Where: The search case proceedings take place in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C., before Judge Amit Mehta. The AdTech case is heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Both cases affect Google's global operations but focus primarily on U.S. markets.

Why: The DOJ argues that Google's exclusive distribution agreements, bundling practices, and control of ad tech infrastructure have unlawfully maintained monopolies, harming competition and consumers. Google maintains that its success results from superior products rather than anticompetitive conduct, arguing the proposed remedies would harm innovation and U.S. technological leadership while benefiting competitors rather than consumers.