The U.S. Department of Justice is holding to the central demand in its Google antitrust remedy plan: it still wants the company to sell Chrome. A Friday court filing shows the department has not backed away from that proposed browser divestiture, even as it has softened its position on Google’s artificial intelligence investments.
The filing keeps Chrome at the center of the government’s proposed response to Google’s conduct in online search. At the same time, it narrows the AI remedy from a forced sale of existing investments to a requirement that Google give prior notification for future investments.
The Core Chrome Demand Remains
The DOJ first proposed that Google should sell Chrome last year, under then-President Joe Biden. The latest filing shows that the department is continuing with that position under the second Trump administration.
That continuity matters because Chrome remains one of the “core components” of the DOJ’s initial proposal. The department said it has not changed those core components, including both the divestment of Chrome and a prohibition on search-related payments to distribution partners.
The government’s argument is rooted in the broader antitrust case over online search. The proposal follows antitrust suits filed by the DOJ and 38 state attorneys general. Those cases led Judge Amit P. Mehta to rule that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search.
Google has said it will appeal Mehta’s decision. While that appeal path remains part of the company’s response, Google has also offered an alternative proposal that it said would address the judge’s concerns by giving partners more flexibility.
Why The DOJ Is Pressing For Strong Remedies
The DOJ’s filing frames Google’s market position as the result of illegal conduct rather than ordinary competition. In the filing, signed by Omeed Assefi, its current acting attorney general for antitrust, the department used unusually forceful language to describe the company’s power.
“Google’s illegal conduct has created a n economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that — no matter what occurs — Google always wins,”
That statement explains why the DOJ says it is keeping the central parts of its original proposal. From the department’s perspective, a narrow remedy would not be enough if the court accepts that Google’s conduct helped preserve a search monopoly.
The Chrome proposal is therefore not being treated as a side issue in the filing. It is presented alongside the proposed ban on search-related payments to distribution partners, showing that the DOJ is focused on both Google’s products and its business arrangements around search distribution.
The AI Remedy Has Been Narrowed
The most notable change in the new DOJ proposal concerns artificial intelligence. The department is no longer seeking “the mandatory divestiture of Google’s AI investments.” That earlier position would have covered investments including the billions Google has poured into Anthropic.
Instead, the DOJ said it would be satisfied with “prior notification for future investments.” In plain terms, the department is still asking for oversight around future AI investment activity, but it is no longer demanding that Google unwind all of its existing AI investments.
That distinction is important because it separates the DOJ’s approach to Chrome from its approach to AI. On Chrome, the department is still asking for divestment. On AI, it has shifted to notice for future deals rather than mandatory divestiture of current holdings.
The filing also adjusts how Android is handled. Instead of giving Google the option to divest Android now, the DOJ would leave a future decision to the court. That decision would depend on whether the market becomes more competitive.
Google Says The Proposal Goes Too Far
Google is pushing back against the scope of the government’s proposed remedies. A Google spokesperson told Reuters that the DOJ’s “sweeping proposals continue to go miles beyond the Court’s decision, and would harm America’s consumers, economy and national security.”
That response highlights the central dispute now moving into the next phase. The DOJ says its proposal is needed because Google’s conduct preserved an online search monopoly. Google says the government’s proposed remedies exceed what the court decided and would create broader harms.
The company’s own alternative proposal is built around giving partners more flexibility. The source article does not detail every part of that proposal, but it describes Google’s position as an attempt to address Mehta’s concerns without accepting the DOJ’s requested remedies.
What Happens Next
Mehta is scheduled to hear arguments from both Google and the DOJ in April. Those arguments will give each side a chance to defend its view of what the remedy should look like after the ruling on Google’s online search monopoly.
For now, the shape of the fight is clear. The DOJ is standing by the demand that Google sell Chrome, maintaining its proposed ban on search-related payments to distribution partners, and reserving a future Android decision for the court. At the same time, it has stepped back from forcing divestiture of Google’s AI investments.
The result is a proposal that remains aggressive on search and Chrome while becoming more limited on AI. The court’s next decision will determine how far the remedy process moves toward the DOJ’s vision, Google’s alternative, or something in between.