{
  "id": 345075,
  "title": "Google Should Still Be Forced To Shed Chrome, Advocacy Group Argues",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/09/google-should-still-be-forced-to-shed-chrome-advocacy-group-argues",
  "topic": "ai",
  "section": "AI",
  "published": "2026-08-09T03:52:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Slashdot",
    "slug": "slashdot",
    "url": "https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/08/09/0351205/google-should-still-be-forced-to-shed-chrome-advocacy-group-argues"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Advocacy group Public Knowledge contends that Google must be compelled to divest the Chrome browser and barred from compensating Apple to distribute Google's search engine, as detailed in a recent court filing. This proposal aims to ensure that independent ownership of Chrome would open the distribution channel controlled by Google, enabling it to make privacy decisions and integrate search and artificial intelligence features for user benefit. Post-distribution, an independent Chrome could prioritize user interests when determining tracking rules for Chrome's browsing environment.\n\nFollowing a September 2025 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Mehta, Google was mandated to share search data with select competitors and allow them access to syndicated search results and advertisements. The judge also prohibited Google from forming exclusive distribution contracts for its search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and Gemini app for six years, although allowing the company to maintain payment arrangements for search-ad revenue and distribution with other entities like Apple, Mozilla, and others. Google promptly lodged an appeal, arguing it had \"prevailed in the marketplace fair and square\" and that Apple and Mozilla had chosen Google as their default search engine due to superior user experiences and substantial ad revenue generation from these partnerships.\n\nThe U.S. Justice Department and various states have countered this appellate court position, urging the court to uphold the liability findings. They argue that Google should be prohibited from paying Apple and Mozilla for their default search engine status on respective browsers. While the government did not propose Chrome's divestiture in its appellate brief, Public Knowledge independently advocates for this course of action, contending that it would serve consumers' best interests.\n\nThe organization highlights that Google's April 2025 decision to maintain tracking cookies, a shift from its previous intent to block third-party cookies by default, illustrates Google's dual role in managing Chrome's tracking rules and the advertising revenue impacted by these decisions. By allowing an independent Chrome to oversee these matters, Public Knowledge argues, users' privacy and browsing preferences would be safeguarded without bias from Google's financial interests.\n\nHowever, Mozilla, the developer of the Firefox browser, has countered this stance in its own friend-of-the-court brief. It warns that Mozilla could be compelled to exit the browser and browser engine markets if it cannot receive payment from Google to distribute its search engine. Mozilla supports Mehta's decision on payment allowances, citing a study indicating a significant revenue decline if Google's search engine were replaced with Bing as the default option for Firefox users. Google is anticipated to submit further arguments to the appellate court in the coming month.",
  "summary": "\"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,\" MediaPost reports, citing a friend-of-the-court brief filed Tuesday in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals: The group adds that \"independent ownership\" of Chrome \"would open the distribution…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}