Google will not have to sell its Chrome web browser but must share information with competitors, a US federal judge has ordered.
The remedies decided by District Judge Amit Mehta have emerged after a years-long court battle over Google's dominance in online search.
The case centred around Google's position as the default search engine on a range of its own products such as Android and Chrome as well as others made by the likes of Apple.
The US Department of Justice had demanded that Google sell Chrome, but Tuesday's decision means the tech giant can keep it. However, it will be barred from having exclusive contracts and must share search data with rivals.
Google had proposed less drastic solutions, such as limiting its revenue-sharing agreements with firms like Apple to make its search engine the default on their devices and browsers.
On Tuesday, the company indicated that it viewed the ruling as a victory, claiming that the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) played a role in the outcome.
Today's decision recognizes how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information, Google said in a statement after the ruling.
The tech giant has maintained that its market dominance stems from providing a superior search engine that consumers prefer over others.
Last year, Judge Mehta ruled that Google had employed unfair methods to establish a monopoly over the online search market, thereby violating US law.
However, in his ruling, Judge Mehta said a complete sell-off of Chrome was a poor fit for this case. Additionally, the company will not have to sell its Android operating system, which powers the majority of smartphones worldwide.
Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater noted that the remedy order seeks to restore competition within the long-monopolized search market. Google is now evaluating whether the relief ordered goes far enough to achieve this goal.
Shares in Alphabet, Google's parent company, jumped by over 8% following the ruling, seen as beneficial for smartphone makers like Apple, Samsung, and Motorola, which will now have the freedom to pre-load or promote alternatives to Google's platforms.
Despite this ruling being a win for Google and other major players, competitor DuckDuckGo criticized the order for lacking stronger measures to combat Google's alleged illegal behaviors, calling for actions that would ultimately benefit consumers.
The decision does not mark the end of Google's legal challenges; a separate case concerning online advertising monopolies is on the horizon.
