The future of Chrome is now part of a much larger fight over search, browsers, and artificial intelligence. In the remedy phase of Google’s antitrust trial, the Department of Justice is pressing for changes that could alter how Google’s search business works after the company was ruled a search monopolist.
One proposed remedy stands out: forcing Google to sell Chrome. That idea has raised an immediate question. If Chrome had to leave Google, who would be willing to buy one of the most important gateways to the web?
OpenAI says it would be interested
Nick Turley, head of product for ChatGPT at OpenAI, appeared as one of the DOJ’s witnesses on the second day of the trial. His testimony was not limited to Chrome. The government is also pursuing remedies that include requiring Google to share its search index with competitors.
Still, Chrome became a central part of the discussion. When Turley was asked whether OpenAI would want Chrome if Google were required to sell it, he gave a direct answer: “Yes, we would, as would many other parties,” Turley said.
That statement does not mean a sale will happen. Judge Amit Mehta has expressed some skepticism about the DOJ’s proposal to divest Chrome. But the testimony puts OpenAI clearly among the possible buyers if the court were to order a sale and if Google had to part with the browser.
The DOJ’s view is that Chrome is connected to Google’s anticompetitive conduct. The government argues that separating Chrome from Google could help level the online playing field. Until Turley’s testimony, one practical uncertainty around that remedy was the buyer question.
Search data is part of the same fight
The Chrome discussion sits alongside a second major issue: access to Google’s search index. OpenAI already has a close relationship with Microsoft, but Turley suggested that Bing’s search data was not enough for OpenAI’s needs, without naming Microsoft directly.
An email revealed at trial showed OpenAI telling Google, “We believe having multiple partners, and in particular Google’s API, would enable us to provide a better product to users.” Google rejected the request because it believed such a deal would hurt its lead in search.
According to the source article, OpenAI and Google have no ongoing partnership today. Turley argued that requiring Google to license its search data would restore competition.
That matters because AI products increasingly depend on timely, broad, and useful information retrieval. The trial frames search data not simply as a feature of traditional search engines, but as a critical input for products like ChatGPT.
Why Chrome would matter to OpenAI
Chrome is not just another browser in this debate. The source article describes it as having 4 billion users and 67 percent market share. For any company building consumer AI products, that kind of reach would be hard to replicate from scratch.
If OpenAI controlled Chrome, it would gain a direct path to a large existing user base. Those users have historically been encouraged to use Google services through the browser experience. A new owner could change which services are emphasized and how they appear inside daily browsing.
Turley predicted an “AI-first” experience if OpenAI were running Chrome. The article also notes that ChatGPT would likely be integrated throughout the browser experience under OpenAI ownership.
The browser could also matter for agentic AI models. The source article points to the value of user data flowing to Chrome’s owner, especially for training models that can operate browsers on a user’s behalf. In plain terms, a browser is both a product people use and a window into how people move across the web.
OpenAI has already looked toward browsers
OpenAI’s interest in Chrome does not appear to come out of nowhere. The company has reportedly considered building its own Chromium-based browser to compete with Chrome.
The source article also says OpenAI hired former Google developers Ben Goodger and Darin Fisher several months ago. Both worked to bring Chrome to market.
Those hires do not prove that OpenAI will build or buy a browser. But they fit with the broader picture presented at trial: OpenAI sees the browser as strategically important, and Chrome would offer a scale that a new browser would not have on day one.
A Chromium-based browser would put OpenAI in the same technical neighborhood as Chrome. Buying Chrome, if it ever became possible, would be a very different move because it would include the established product and its existing distribution.
The unresolved question of who should own Chrome
The debate has focused heavily on who might buy Chrome if Google is forced to sell it. The source article notes that there has been less attention on whether Chrome could instead become an independent company.
Google has argued that Chrome could not survive on its own. The article contrasts that with Google’s multibillion-dollar search placement deals, which the DOJ wants to end, suggesting that the browser’s position in search distribution is financially significant.
For now, the outcome remains uncertain. The court would have to accept a remedy that forces a sale, Google would have to sell, and a buyer would need the resources and approval to take over Chrome.
But Turley’s testimony clarifies one thing: OpenAI sees Chrome as more than a browser. In the context of Google’s antitrust case, Chrome has become a possible foundation for an AI-first browsing experience, a distribution channel for ChatGPT, and a major piece of the competition debate around search data.