Google is under pressure from U.S. authorities to sell off its Chrome browser following a court ruling that found the company holds an illegal monopoly across multiple services, including search and web browsing. Regulators argue that divesting Chrome is necessary to restore competition, but Google strongly disagrees.
In a recent court hearing, Chrome director Parisa Tabriz warned that separating Chrome from Google would not only be extremely difficult but also harmful to users worldwide.
“Ripping Chrome and Google apart would be detrimental to internet users globally,” she said, stressing that key features like Safe Browsing and password breach alerts depend on deep integration with Google’s systems. Tabriz argued that no other company could maintain or replace Chrome’s functions to the same standard.
She also highlighted Google’s massive investment in Chrome and its open-source foundation, Chromium. “Chrome is the result of 17 years of collaboration between our teams,” she said, adding that over 90% of its codebase comes from Google and that the company has invested hundreds of millions of dollars, with more than 1,000 developers working on the browser today.
Despite these arguments, regulators remain firm. They claim the separation is technically feasible and necessary to level the digital playing field. In last year’s antitrust ruling, Judge Amit Mehta noted how Google benefits enormously from being the default search engine, as most users stick with pre-installed settings—bringing in billions of daily queries and vast amounts of data.
The legal battle continues, with the final outcome still uncertain. But whatever the result, it could significantly reshape how web browsers — and tech monopolies — are handled going forward.
About The Author
