法官在垄断案中裁定：谷歌无需出售Chrome浏览器
内容总结：
谷歌垄断案迎来关键裁决：法院驳回分拆Chrome要求，但限制其商业行为
当地时间9月2日，美国联邦法官阿米特·梅塔就谷歌垄断案作出长达230页的裁决，驳回司法部要求谷歌分拆Chrome浏览器和Android操作系统的诉求，但要求谷歌对其部分商业行为进行限制。
去年该法院裁定谷歌通过非法手段维持搜索引擎垄断地位后，司法部曾主张强制其出售Chrome业务。梅塔法官在最新判决中指出，政府这一要求"越权"，并强调"谷歌未利用这些核心资产实施非法垄断"，因此不予支持分拆方案。
不过判决书对谷歌作出三项关键限制：禁止就搜索引擎、Google Assistant、Gemini和Chrome等产品的预装签订排他性协议；不得以预装谷歌应用作为设备制造商接入Play商店的前提条件；禁止将应用预置位置与收入分成条款挂钩。但法官允许谷歌继续向苹果等合作伙伴支付费用，以预装其搜索等应用，认为终止此类合作可能"对渠道伙伴、相关市场和消费者造成连带损害"。
此外，谷歌需向竞争对手有限开放搜索引擎数据共享。梅塔表示此举将"缩小因排他性协议形成的规模差距及衍生的质量差距"，但广告数据不在共享范围内。
谷歌在声明中称该裁决"承认了AI技术带来的行业变革"，但对数据共享等要求表示担忧，认为可能"影响用户隐私保护"。该公司表示正在深入研究判决细节，此前曾表明将对初审裁决提出上诉。
此次判决被视为谷歌的重要胜利，该公司始终主张分拆方案"将损害美国利益及其全球科技领导地位"。案件最终判决仍待后续司法程序确定。
中文翻译：
在一起反垄断诉讼中，法官裁定谷歌无需出售Chrome浏览器
但该公司仍需调整部分商业行为
联邦法官裁定，谷歌无需剥离Chrome浏览器业务，但必须调整部分商业操作。这项裁决距离该法官认定谷歌通过非法手段维持搜索引擎垄断地位已过去一年有余。在去年裁决后，美国司法部曾主张强制谷歌出售Chrome浏览器。
但在长达230页的判决书中，阿米特·梅塔法官指出政府的诉求"越界"。梅塔写道："不应要求谷歌剥离Chrome业务，最终判决也不会包含对Android操作系统的或有剥离条款。原告方要求强制剥离这些关键资产的做法过度激进，谷歌并未利用这些资产实施任何非法限制。"
不过梅塔裁定，谷歌今后不得就搜索引擎、Google Assistant助手、Gemini产品或Chrome浏览器的分销签订排他性协议。例如：谷歌不能以预装其应用程序作为设备制造商接入Play应用商店的条件；不得以应用预装位置作为收入分成协议的前提。但谷歌仍可继续向苹果等合作伙伴支付费用，以预装搜索等应用程序。梅塔认为终止这些安排可能"对分销合作伙伴、相关市场及消费者造成连锁损害"。
梅塔还裁定谷歌需向竞争对手共享部分搜索数据。他在判决书中指出："向竞争者开放数据将缩小谷歌排他性分销协议造成的规模差距，进而缩小由此产生的质量差距。"但公司无需移交与广告业务相关的数据。
这项裁决总体上有利于这家搜索巨头。谷歌曾辩称剥离Chrome或Android业务"将损害美国民众利益及美国在全球科技领域的领导地位"。谷歌在周二发布的声明中表示对裁决部分内容"存在顾虑"。
该公司称："今日的判决认可了人工智能兴起带来的行业变革——如今人们拥有更多获取信息的途径。法院现对我们分发谷歌服务的方式施加限制，并要求与竞争对手共享搜索数据。我们担忧这些要求将对用户及其隐私造成的影响，正在仔细研读判决书。"该公司此前表示计划对梅塔法官的初始裁决提出上诉，但六月时称将等待案件最终判决。
太平洋时间2025年9月2日下午4点28分更新：补充谷歌公司就本案裁决的声明内容。
英文来源：
Google doesn't have to sell Chrome, judge in monopoly case rules
The company will have to change some of its business practices, though.
Google will not have to divest its Chrome browser but will have to change some of its business practices, a federal judge has ruled. The ruling comes more than a year after the same judge ruled that Google had acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in internet search.
Following the ruling last year, the Department of Justice had proposed that Google should be forced to sell Chrome. But in a 230-page decision, Judge Amit Mehta said the government had "overreached" in its request. "Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment," Mehta wrote. "Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints."
Google will, however, no longer be permitted to strike exclusive deals around the distribution of search, Google Assistant, Gemini or Chrome, Mehta ruled. For example, Google can't require device makers to pre-load its apps in order to get access to the Play Store. It also can't condition revenue-sharing arrangements on the placement of its apps. But Google will be able to continue to pay partners — like Apple — for pre-loading search and other apps into their products. Mehta said that ending these arrangements could cause "downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers."
Mehta also ruled that Google will need to share some of its search data with competitors going forward. "Making data available to competitors would narrow the scale gap created by Google’s exclusive distribution agreements and, in turn, the quality gap that followed," he wrote. The company is not required to hand over data related to its ads.
Mehta's ruling is largely a win for the search giant, which had argued that divesting Chrome or Android "would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership." In a statement Tuesday, Google said it had "concerns" about some aspects of the ruling.
"Today’s decision recognizes how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information," the company said. "Now the Court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share Search data with rivals. We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we’re reviewing the decision closely."
The company previously indicated it plans to appeal Mehta's original decision, but said in June it would wait for a final decision in the case.
Update, September 2, 2025, 4:28PM PT: This post has been updated to add a statement from Google on the ruling.