# Mehta orders search remedies but does not force a Chrome sale

Date: 2025

## The fact

On 2 September 2025 Judge Mehta issued search-monopoly remedies: no exclusive defaults for Search/Chrome/Assistant/Gemini, some data sharing, no Chrome divestiture. [Pichai](/people/sundar-pichai) had testified.

## Context

Neighbouring liability 2024 is the prior finding. Neighbouring EU ad-tech 2025 is later that week. He did not write the Sherman Act.

Liability 5 August 2024 is neighbouring. EU ad-tech 5 September 2025 is neighbouring Commission money. DMA 2023 is neighbouring EU listing.

Sundar Pichai has been CEO of Google since 10 August 2015 and of Alphabet since 3 December 2019. He does not write a Sherman Act complaint, a Commission DMA article, a CAC circular, or a Pentagon contract clause by himself as a civil servant. A keynote is not a completed breakup. A liability opinion is not a Chrome sale. A layoff round is not a unique unemployment coefficient as his personal tally. TPU trains; TSMC and partners fabricate; App Review analogues on Play enforce. Keep those dates separate. An AI Principle PDF is not a completed weapons ban. A settlement is not a verdict. [Larry Page](/people/larry-page) is a different person. Sergey Brin is a different person.

## Evidence and sources

United States Department of Justice carries the official instrument or communique. Associated Press records the same dated act independently.

## Significance

The path is [antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets](/drivers/antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets): a completed remedies opinion is a default-deal constraint that stopped short of structural relief. An injunction is not a completed Chrome sale.

## What is established and what is not

Established: 2 September 2025 Mehta remedies opinion, independently reported.

Not established: that Search share uniquely collapsed that week, or a unique later CPI coefficient from the PDF.

What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, a later repeal, a court that vacated the instrument, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions.

The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit.

Mehta wrote remedies. DOJ had sought a Chrome sale and did not get it. He did not sit as the judge.. A later repeal, court stay, or successor order would be a different Fact with a different date. That pair identifies Mehta orders search remedies but does not force a Chrome sale, not a later speech about Mehta orders search remedies but does not force a Chrome sale.

Co-authors and later implementers named in Context remain on the file. Mehta orders search remedies but does not force a Chrome sale on 2025-09-02 is not a licence to treat every later United States Department of Justice communique as this same act. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. This dossier refuses to average Mehta orders search remedies but does not force a Chrome sale into a personality. The contribution described on this Person row is limited to He testified as CEO. Mehta wrote remedies. DOJ had sought a Chrome sale and did not get it. He did not sit as the judge. That limit is the alternative to treating office-holding as authorship of every later series.

## People

- Sundar Pichai: https://factrail.ai/people/sundar-pichai

## Drivers

- Antitrust Pressure in Digital Markets: https://factrail.ai/drivers/antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets
- Digital-Platform Power Concentration: https://factrail.ai/drivers/digital-platform-power-concentration

## Sources

- https://apnews.com/article/google-search-antitrust-remedies-chrome-846916fda0943c5fa359385044a02c8b
- https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-significant-remedies-against-google

## Methodology

https://factrail.ai/methodology

Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/goog-remedies-2025