Controversial voices argue that Google's recent court ruling is a weak solution to the century's most notable monopoly case, while the US Department of Justice asserts that the matter has yet to be fully resolved.

In a recent development, tech giant Google has been ordered to share some of its index and user interaction data with "qualified competitors" as part of a court ruling in the ongoing Chrome case. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has not declared any significant remedies against Google in this case, but has stated that "We're not done."

The ruling, issued by Judge Amit Mehta, also requires Google to share search and text ads syndication services, and prohibits the company from entering into any exclusive contracts in relation to the distribution of its search tools, assistant, or Chrome. Google has been ordered to pay $425 million in a class action lawsuit for invading users' privacy and collecting data.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda stated, "Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalisation, we honour that choice." The company has also announced its intention to appeal this decision.

James Bentley, a recent PC gaming convert and a writer for this article, has covered various gaming hardware and accessories in his writing. The Chrome case, however, does not involve any mentions of specific gaming products or recommendations.

The reaction to Google not being forced to sell Chrome has been largely negative from politicians, CEOs, and Tim Sweeney. Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Market Institute thinktank, argues that Judge Mehta's order does nothing to right Google's illegalities. Nidhi Hedge, the executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, compares the remedy to sentencing a bank robber to writing a thank-you note for the loot.

The emergence of generative AI has reportedly changed the course of the case, according to Judge Mehta's latest ruling. The Chrome case is set to reach its conclusion on September 10. Gail Slater, the head of the DOJ's antitrust division, has stated that "We're not done." The outcome of any further action remains to be seen.