U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) during 2024 proposed that Google divest its Chrome browser as part of a broader remedy following a 2024 ruling that found Google holds an illegal monopoly in online search. This stems from a case where the DOJ argued Google uses its dominance—about 90% of U.S. search traffic—to stifle competition, partly by leveraging Chrome’s massive user base (over 2 billion users globally) to keep Google Search as the default engine. The DOJ’s filing in late 2024, reinforced in early 2025, contends that selling Chrome to an independent buyer would weaken Google’s ability to lock users into its ecosystem, thus restoring competition in search. Chrome isn’t just a browser; it’s a pipeline. It defaults to Google Search, feeds data into Google’s ad machine, and integrates with services like Android and Google Accounts. Chrome drives around 60% of Google’s search volume, which in turn fuels roughly 60% of its revenue—hundreds of billions annually. If Google loses Chrome, it could lose significant control over how users access search, potentially opening the door for rivals like Bing or DuckDuckGo to gain traction via new defaults or partnerships.

The DOJ’s remedy, outlined in court filings, also includes barring Google from owning another browser or striking exclusive search deals for a decade, which could kneecap its ability to compete globally. Google had called it “unprecedented government overreach,” warning it could harm consumers by disrupting a free, widely used product and weaken a U.S. leader against international competitors.

DOJ frames this as pro-competition, not anti-American. The goal isn’t to destroy Google but to dismantle what they see as an illegal chokehold—90% search market share doesn’t happen by accident. Chrome’s divestiture isn’t about killing a U.S. company; it’s about ensuring other U.S. firms (or global players) get a fair shot.

Google’s fighting hard, arguing Chrome’s integration is what makes it valuable, not monopolistic.

Antitrust regulations in the United States, primarily enforced through laws like the Sherman Act (1890), the Clayton Act (1914), and the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914), are designed to promote competition and prevent monopolies or unfair business practices that could harm consumers, competitors, or the economy.  

Historically, antitrust enforcement has targeted major U.S. companies when they’ve been seen to dominate markets in ways that stifle competition. Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 under the Sherman Act, or AT&T, split in 1982—both were American giants whose market power was deemed excessive. Tech firms like Microsoft (late 1990s), Google, Amazon, Apple, and Meta (ongoing since 2020) show a pattern of scrutiny on U.S.-based industry leaders. These companies have faced lawsuits or investigations from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for practices like monopolization, exclusionary contracts, or anticompetitive mergers. The DOJ’s 2020 case against Google focused on its dominance in search and advertising, while the FTC’s 2023 suit against Amazon alleged illegal maintenance of monopoly power through pricing algorithms and seller restrictions.

Galactik Views