Google gets to keep Chrome: What the antitrust ruling means for marketers

In 2024, Google was found by a US court to have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Department of Justice had a long shopping list of remedies. Arguably the most dramatic of those was the suggestion that Google be forced to sell Chrome.

This week, DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that a divestiture of the popular web browser was unlikely to solve the monopoly issue and was, in fact, an “incredibly messy and highly risky” solution, given the reliance of Google infrastructure. Indeed, the judge seemed somewhat unconvinced by most of the arguments presented by the DOJ. Instead, he has required a list of remedies that has been described as “cowardice” by The American Economic Liberties Project.

But what has been required, and what does this mean in the short and long term? We break down what remedies are being required by the judge and what this could potentially mean for Google’s monopoly.

What remedies are Google required to make?

Remedies required by Judge Amit Mehta include:

• Data sharing: Google will be required to share select data from its search engine with rivals. However, rather than periodically updating the data, it will be a one-time snapshot, priced at margin cost, and far more limited in scope than requested by the DOJ.

• No exclusive partnerships: Google will be prohibited from entering into any exclusivity agreements to distribute its apps, such as Chrome, Gemini, or Search. Notably, however, this will not prevent Google from paying to be the default placement on browsers such as Firefox or Safari.

That’s it. Of everything the DOJ asked for—from 10 years of all search data shared with competitors to the complete spin-off of Chrome (and even Android!)—this is what has come from the largest antitrust trial since Microsoft back in 1998. It is, all things considered, a very mild outcome.

What this ruling means for your marketing strategy

For marketers, the immediate impact of this ruling can be summarised in two words: business as usual. The remedies imposed are not significant enough to disrupt the digital ecosystem or challenge Google’s dominant position. While the headlines may suggest drama, the practical reality for your day-to-day strategy remains unchanged.

Here is a breakdown of the key implications:

• Google Ads remains the cornerstone of PPC: The ruling does nothing to alter the fundamental mechanics or market share of Google’s advertising platform. It will continue to be the primary channel for paid search for the foreseeable future, commanding the lion's share of ad spend for most B2B organisations. Your budget allocation, bidding strategies, and performance benchmarks on Google Ads are not going to be affected by this outcome.

• Search engine optimisation is still the Google game: The one-time data snapshot offered to competitors is highly unlikely to fuel a new, competitive search engine that could challenge Google's mindshare. Therefore, your organic growth strategy should remain firmly focused on Google. The goal is the same as it was last week: aligning your content and technical strategy with Google’s best practices to earn visibility.

• Don't expect disruption any time soon: Perhaps the most critical point is that this ruling opens the door for Google to appeal the initial finding that it holds a monopoly. This legal process will take years to navigate, potentially going all the way to the Supreme Court. This means any seismic shifts are years away, if they happen at all. Strategically, you must focus on the landscape you have today, not a hypothetical one that might exist in 2028.

Looking ahead: Strategic shifts to monitor

While the immediate impact is minimal, this ruling signals three medium-term shifts that forward-thinking B2B marketers should monitor:

• The new marketplace for search defaults: Paying for placement is not the same as paying for exclusivity. In theory, this ruling opens the door for rivals like Microsoft to bid more aggressively for default positions on browsers. Prudent B2B marketers should familiarise themselves with platforms like Bing Ads as a potential long-term hedge.

• The rise of AI-native search: The court explicitly acknowledged the growing competition from AI assistants like Perplexity. This reflects a fundamental shift in user behaviour away from traditional search results pages. Your content strategy must adapt to serve two masters: creating concise, fact-dense answers for AI, alongside the in-depth, persuasive content designed for human decision-makers.

• A wider regulatory landscape: This search case is just one of Google’s legal challenges. The company is also facing remedies in a separate ad-tech antitrust case in the US, and this week received significant fines from the EU for similar market distortions. This broader regulatory pressure signals a more turbulent and fragmented future for the digital advertising ecosystem.

In essence, the key takeaway for B2B organisations is to maintain focus. The digital marketing fundamentals have not been altered. Continue to invest in understanding your audience, creating high-value content, and optimising your presence on the platforms where your customers spend their time—which, for now, remains overwhelmingly within Google's ecosystem.