The Breakup That Wasn’t: How Close Google Came to Losing Chrome

For a moment, the digital world held its breath. The Department of Justice had asked for the ultimate corporate death penalty: forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser, an asset used by billions. The landmark antitrust ruling this week revealed just how close the company came to dismemberment, and why it ultimately dodged the axe.
The government’s argument was simple: Google’s ownership of both the dominant browser and the dominant search engine created an anti-competitive feedback loop. Selling Chrome, they argued, was the only way to break this cycle and create a truly neutral gateway to the internet.
However, Google mounted a fierce defense, arguing a breakup would harm consumers and that the rise of AI was already changing the competitive equation. Judge Amit Mehta ultimately sided with Google on this critical point, calling the DOJ’s divestiture demand an “overreach.” He concluded that the potential harm of a forced sale was too great, especially with new technologies on the horizon.
While Google celebrates this narrow escape, the case serves as a stark reminder of its vulnerability. It has been legally branded an illegal monopolist, and while it gets to keep its assets, the threat of more drastic government action will now permanently loom over its strategic decisions.