Google should be required to divest the Chrome browser, and prohibited from paying Apple to distribute Google’s search engine, the nonprofit advocacy group Public Knowledge argues
in a new court filing.
“The record supports a categorical prohibition” on “search-related distribution payments,” Public Knowledge writes in a friend-of-the-court brief filed
Tuesday with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The group adds that “independent ownership” of Chrome “would open the distribution channel Google controls and allow Chrome to
serve browser users when it makes privacy decisions and determines how to integrate search and (artificial intelligence).”
The nonprofit’s argument comes in an antitrust battle
dating to 2020, when federal and state enforcers accused Google of violating anti-monopoly laws.
U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., sided against Google, ruling in August 2024 that Google unlawfully monopolized
search by arranging to serve as the default search engine on browsers operated by Apple and Mozilla, as well as on Android devices.
advertisement
advertisement
He specifically found that Google unlawfully maintained a
monopoly in two markets: general search services, and search text ads.
In September 2025, Mehta issued a remedies order that requires Google to share some data about users’
searches with “qualified” competitors and to provide syndicated search results and ads to those competitors.
The order also prohibits Google from entering into exclusive
distribution contracts for Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant and the Gemini app for six years, but allows the company to continue to make payments for search-ad revenue or distribution to Apple,
Mozilla and others.
Antitrust enforcers had asked Mehta to order Google to divest Chrome, but he rejected that request.
Google recently appealed Mehta’s order.
The company argued in its
written brief that it “prevailed in the marketplace fair and square,” adding that Apple and Mozilla “sensibly chose” Google as the default search engine “because it gave their users the best
experience,” and because Apple and Mozilla would earn the most ad revenue through the deals.
The Justice Department and states countered to the appellate court last week that
the liability finding should stand, and also argued that Google should have been banned from paying Apple and Mozilla for placement as the default search engine on their browsers.
The
government did not argue in its appellate papers that Google should be forced to sell Chrome.
But Public Knowledge independently contends in its friend-of-the-court brief that
divestiture would benefit consumers.
“A browser controls a user’s interaction with the web, and determines how websites may access and use data,” the group writes.
“Divestiture would place those decisions with an institution whose success depends on serving browser users primarily.”
Among other arguments, Public Knowledge specifically
says a forced sale would “allow Chrome to serve browser users when it makes privacy decisions.”
The group is calling the appellate court’s attention to Google’s April 2025
decision to preserve tracking cookies — a reversal from its earlier plans to
block third-party cookies by default.
“Google is in the position of both deciding Chrome’s tracking rules while running the advertising business affected by them,” Public
Knowledge writes. “An independent Chrome could make those decisions on behalf of users alone.”
Google is expected to file a response next month.
