Nearly five years after the U.S. Department of Justice initiated its landmark antitrust case against Google—accusing the company of engaging in monopolistic conduct that unfairly entrenched its dominance in the online search market—the contours of victory and defeat have finally become visible. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued a consequential ruling that reshapes the landscape of digital competition. While Google narrowly escaped the most severe potential consequence of the trial—the forced divestiture of its Chrome browser—it will nevertheless face meaningful restrictions. Judge Mehta’s decision explicitly prohibits Google from entering into exclusive arrangements with strategic partners such as Apple that guarantee Google Search a privileged, default status across devices. Furthermore, the ruling compels Google to make portions of its valuable search data accessible to competitors, thus lowering one major barrier to entry for emerging search and artificial intelligence companies seeking to challenge its market supremacy.
Although Google has signaled its intent to appeal—an action that will likely extend legal proceedings for years to come—the immediate effect of this ruling is significant. The judgment introduces new possibilities for Google’s competitors, particularly AI-driven firms such as OpenAI and Perplexity, as well as Microsoft, long positioned as a rival in search. Addressing the outcome, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, expressed concern that the conditions imposed could negatively affect user experience and data privacy, underscoring that the company is carefully reviewing the court’s conclusions.
### Winners
**Google**
Paradoxically, despite the ruling being formally against it, Google emerged with the least damaging outcome it could realistically have hoped for. Significantly, the company avoided being compelled to divest Chrome, a tool that not only serves as one of the world’s most widely used browsers with more than three billion active users but also functions as an exceptionally powerful conduit channeling traffic directly to Google Search. Chrome additionally generates a treasure trove of user query data, empowering Google to continuously refine and strengthen its search algorithm. If stripped away, the loss of Chrome would have deeply undermined both Google’s distribution power and its future innovation capacity. Instead, the company will merely have to operate without certain exclusive arrangements, though it can still make large financial payments—particularly to Apple and similar partners—to preserve default placement of its search engine.
The Department of Justice’s case had long centered on Google’s payments to Apple, which amounted to roughly $20 billion in 2022, equaling about one-fifth of Apple’s annual services revenue. By allowing such payments to continue, provided they remain non-exclusive, the court granted both companies a reprieve and maintained a deeply lucrative relationship. Internally, Google had projected devastating consequences if it lost its default status on Apple devices; estimates presented in court proceedings suggested Google could have lost as much as 60% to 80% of search traffic on iPhones and iPads, an outcome valued at between $28.2 billion and $32.7 billion in annual revenue. The preservation of this arrangement not only protects Google’s revenue stream but also keeps channels open for deeper collaboration with Apple, perhaps even in the realm of artificial intelligence.
**Apple**
Apple likewise ranks among the clear beneficiaries of the decision. The company retains the ability to collect substantial yearly payments from Google for making its search service the default option on iPhone and iPad. Moreover, because exclusivity clauses are no longer permissible, Apple is now at liberty to incorporate alternative search tools without risking violation of regulatory restrictions or contractual agreements. This newfound flexibility could encourage experimentation and diversification, particularly in partnership with AI-focused search platforms. Analysts such as Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities interpret the ruling as paving the way toward even closer collaboration between Apple and Google, with potential partnerships around Google’s Gemini AI suite now less hindered by legal uncertainty.
**OpenAI and Perplexity**
Other winners in this recalibrated environment are smaller AI-oriented firms that have struggled to overcome Google’s longstanding dominance in search. OpenAI’s newly launched search offering and Perplexity’s growing suite of AI-powered products, including its Comet browser, could now receive exposure and distribution opportunities previously unattainable under Google’s exclusivity agreements. Apple, for instance, could choose to integrate or actively promote alternatives like OpenAI’s ChatGPT as a default or supplementary search option, thereby boosting consumer access and breaking Google’s stranglehold. Additionally, the court’s requirement that Google share elements of its search index and user-interaction data provides rivals with crucial raw material to develop more competitive search models, potentially accelerating innovation in an industry where data access defines quality and improvement.
### Losers
**Browser Rivals**
The most evident casualties of the court’s restrained ruling are Google’s competitors in the browser market. The government’s failure to compel the breakup of Chrome means that the browser will continue to benefit from Google’s immense financial resources, ongoing engineering support, and seamless integration with its suite of services. This reality poses a daunting challenge to rivals like Microsoft’s Edge, despite its inclusion by default on Windows machines; Apple’s Safari, popular among the company’s own hardware ecosystem; and Perplexity’s nascent Comet browser. All remain dwarfed by Chrome’s overwhelming global user base, which continues to expand under Google’s stewardship. Perplexity’s audacious, though unrealistic, bid earlier in the year to purchase Chrome at a valuation far exceeding its current worth highlighted both Chrome’s undeniable strategic value and the competitive impossibility of dislodging it from the market. The ruling confirms that for the foreseeable future, Chrome is untouchable.
### Conclusion
Altogether, Judge Mehta’s decision represents a nuanced recalibration of the digital marketplace. Google endures restrictions but maintains its most valuable distribution asset in Chrome; Apple continues to profit handsomely while exploring new AI integrations; and OpenAI alongside Perplexity gains fresh openings to challenge dominance in search and artificial intelligence applications. On the losing side, however, lie competitors in the browser sector who must now confront the reality of Chrome’s preserved supremacy. With appeals already signaled and years of additional litigation potentially ahead, this case may yet evolve further, but for the moment, the balance of power in the tech ecosystem has been partially shifted, favoring increased competition in one domain even as other monopolistic bulwarks remain intact.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-search-antitrust-monopoly-case-decision-winners-losers-2025-9
