The US Department of Justice wants Google to sell off its Chrome browser as part of its final remedy proposal in a landmark antitrust case.

The proposal, filed Friday afternoon, says that Google must “promptly and fully divest Chrome, along with any assets or services necessary to successfully complete the divestiture, to a buyer approved by the Plaintiffs in their sole discretion, subject to terms that the Court and Plaintiffs approve.” It also would require Google to stop paying partners for preferential treatment of its search engine.

The DOJ also demands that Google provide prior notification of any new joint venture, collaboration, or partnership with any company that competes with Google in search or in search text ads. However, the company no longer has to divest its artificial intelligence investments, which was part of an initial set of recommendations issued by the plaintiffs last November. The company would still be required to give prior notification of future AI investments.

“Through its sheer size and unrestricted power, Google has robbed consumers and businesses of a fundamental promise owed to the public—their right to choose among competing services,” the DOJ statement accompanying the filing claims. “Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that—no matter what occurs—Google always wins.”

The DOJ formally brought its case against Google back in 2020, the most significant tech antitrust case since the DOJ’s years-long battle against Microsoft in the 1990s. The lawsuit alleged that Google has used anticompetitive tactics to protect its search dominance and forge contracts that ensure it’s the default search engine on web browsers and smartphones. Because of its hold on search, the lawsuit claimed, Google can adjust the auction system through which it sells ads and increase prices for advertisers, and rake in more revenue from that.

Google has argued that its overwhelming success in search—it has a nearly 90 percent share in the US market—stems from the company offering the best search technology. It also says consumers are easily able to change their default search engine, and that Google does face competition from Microsoft and others.

“DOJ’s sweeping proposals continue to go miles beyond the court’s decision, and would harm America’s consumers, economy and national security,” said Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels in an emailed statement.

The case went to trial in 2023, and in August 2024 the US district judge for the District of Columbia, Amit Mehta, ruled that Google has maintained an illegal monopoly, both in general search and general search text ads.

Much of the ruling centered on the contracts Google has with device makers and browser partners, which use Google as their default search technology. According to Mehta’s ruling, around 70 percent of search queries in the US happen through portals in which Google is the default search engine. Google then shares revenues with those partners, paying out billions of dollars to them, which disincentivizes smaller search rivals who can’t compete with those contracts, Mehta said.

This past November, government attorneys submitted a detailed plan to Mehta that included a spate of recommendations for how to best loosen Google’s stronghold on the US search market. These recommendations included that Google promptly divest Chrome, its popular web browser; possibly divest Android; end its search partnership with Apple, in which Apple receives billions of dollars each year for its Safari browser to default to Google search; and give competitors access to Google’s data, for both search and ads, “that would otherwise provide Google an ongoing advantage from its exclusionary conduct.”

Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and its chief legal officer, called the November proposal a “radical interventionist agenda” that would “endanger the security and privacy of millions of Americans” and stifle innovation. Walker said it would also “chill our investment in artificial intelligence, perhaps the most important innovation of our time, where Google plays a leading role.” Google has increasingly featured AI-powered results at the top of its search pages, despite sometimes uneven results.

In a counter-proposal filed by Google in December, the company said it would structure its contracts to allow for multiple default search agreements across different devices, so that Apple’s iPhones and iPads might have different default search engines; change the length of its search revenue deals with hardware manufacturers to one year rather than locking them into long-term agreements; and allow more flexibility around search and Chrome for Android phone makers. It emphasized that its revenue partners, like Apple and Mozilla, “have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users.”

Essentially, Google has suggested that the company is willing to reevaluate its contracts with partners, but has argued—citing earlier antitrust cases as precedent—that it shouldn’t have to divest parts of its business, share its secret sauce with competitors, or restrict its investments in search and AI, all of which, it argues, would dampen innovation.

Today’s official remedy is notable in that it reinforces calls for a breakup of part of Google’s core business. For Google, it’s an opening salvo to what will likely be a years-long appeal process. Google has already said it plans to appeal whatever remedy is issued; arguments for the two proposals are scheduled for April in Mehta’s court.

The remedy will also mark the first major outcome of a US antitrust case under the new Trump administration. Paul Swanson, a litigation partner at Holland & Hart LLP in Denver, Colorado, who focuses on technology and antitrust, says the government’s remedies may be part of a “maximalist opening position that they can then negotiate from.”

“The one through-line here is that this administration wants to be perceived as being tough on tech, but also not slow the growth of America’s tech industries,” Swanson says. “So they may signal more action than what they ultimately want.”

Update 3/7/25 and 6:44pm ET: This story has been updated with a statement from Google.