Google will not be compelled to divest its Chrome browsers. A federal judge ruled last year’s monopoly case in the ongoing legal dispute involving the tech giant.

The company is prohibited from specific monopolistic transactions with device manufacturers and is required to share data from search engines with competitors, according to the judge’s decision.

Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling comes after months of speculation regarding the penalties Google might face, following a judgment last year which found that Google violated antitrust laws, establishing what the company referred to as an online search monopoly. This case is considered one of the most significant antitrust proceedings in decades, resulting in further hearings in April to ascertain appropriate government actions for relief.

Mehta’s decision to let Google retain Chrome reflects a more favorable outcome for the company than what federal prosecutors had sought. The prosecution had proposed that Google divest its marquee search products and barred it from entering the browser market for a period of five years. In his extensive 230-page ruling, Mehta stated that the prosecutors had “overvalued by seeking mandatory sales of these key assets.”

While Google averted the most severe repercussions for antitrust violations, Mehta’s ruling supported prosecutors by forbidding the establishment or continuation of exclusive agreements regarding the distribution of products such as Chrome, Google Assistant, and Gemini apps. However, this ruling does not restrict Google from compensating distributors.

Following Mehta’s decision, Google’s shares experienced a rise in after-hours trading, indicating investor confidence in the favorable outcomes for the company.

The ruling was critiqued as “a complete failure” by the nonprofit advocacy group, the American Economic Freedom Project.

“It’s akin to finding someone who robbed a bank, only to tell him to write a thank-you note to the robber,” remarked Nidhi Hegde, the executive director of the American Economic Freedom Project. “Likewise, Google is not held accountable for monopolistic behavior, while a remedy is drafted to safeguard that monopoly.”

Google contended that under the Antimonopoly Act, which was first tried in 2023, its advantage in search is not a product of anticompetitive actions but stems from the creation of superior products.

Meanwhile, prosecutors have demonstrated that Google has invested billions in agreements with device manufacturers like Samsung and Apple to establish the browser as the default search for their products, allowing it to secure approximately 90% of the U.S. search market.

“After thorough deliberation and consideration of witness testimonies and evidence, the court concluded that Google was the monopoly and acted to preserve its monopoly,” Mehta ruled last year.

Mehta’s relief decision this week acknowledged that there have been significant transformations in the internet search industry since last year’s case concluded, indicating that his ruling was designed to address both popular search engines and the recent emergence of AI search engines and chatbots developed by Google.

“The procedures for these remedies were aimed at fostering competition among general search engines (GSEs) as much as ensuring that the advantages in search were not overshadowed by developments in the AI space,” Mehta stated.

Additionally, Google is set to face another hearing later this year regarding how the government will manage antitrust violations connected to its monopoly in online advertising technology.