A nonprofit urges the court to force Google to sell Chrome and block search distribution payments to Apple. The case could reshape browser competition and privacy decisions.
Major changes in browser distribution and search engine defaults if a new legal argument gains traction. Public Knowledge, a nonprofit advocacy group, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to require Google to divest its Chrome browser and to prohibit the company from paying Apple to distribute Google Search. The group claims these steps are necessary to address privacy and competition concerns in the digital ecosystem.
Public Knowledge argues that independent ownership of Chrome would break Google's control over a key distribution channel, potentially giving users more say in privacy settings and how search and artificial intelligence are integrated into their browsing experience. The group points to Google's recent decision to maintain tracking cookies in Chrome, reversing earlier plans to block third-party cookies by default, as evidence that Google's dual role in browser and advertising businesses creates conflicts of interest. According to the filing, an independent Chrome could prioritize user privacy over advertising revenue.
This legal push comes amid a broader antitrust battle that began in 2020, when federal and state regulators accused Google of violating anti-monopoly laws. In August 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google unlawfully maintained its dominance in general search services and search text ads by securing default search engine status on browsers like Apple's Safari and Mozilla's Firefox, as well as on Android devices. Mehta's September 2025 remedies order requires Google to share some search data and results with qualified competitors and bans exclusive distribution contracts for Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app for six years. However, the order still allows Google to pay Apple, Mozilla, and others for search-ad revenue or distribution, and Mehta declined to force Google to sell Chrome.
Google has appealed the remedies order, arguing that it won its market position fairly and that Apple and Mozilla chose Google Search as their default because it offered the best user experience and the highest ad revenue. The Justice Department and state attorneys general have countered that the court's liability finding should stand and that Google should be barred from paying for default placement, but they did not call for Chrome's divestiture in their appellate filings. Public Knowledge, acting independently, maintains that divesting Chrome would benefit consumers by ensuring browser decisions are made in users' interests, not Google's advertising business.
Google is expected to respond to the advocacy group's arguments next month. The debate over browser control and search distribution payments continues to draw attention from publishers and digital content businesses, especially as search referral traffic and platform relationships remain critical. For context, recent industry discussions have also focused on how companies are responding to Google's evolving AI and search practices, as seen when People Inc. decided not to block Google's AI crawlers despite declining search traffic.
