• OpenAI told a court it may buy Google’s Chrome browser.
• AI giant looking to cut dependence on Google search infrastructure.

OpenAI would consider acquiring Google’s Chrome browser if regulators move to break it off from Alphabet as part of efforts to restore competition in search, according to Reuters. The idea surfaced during testimony from ChatGPT product lead Nick Turley at Google’s ongoing antitrust trial in Washington.

Turley’s comment comes as the Justice Department pushes for structural changes following a ruling that found Google maintains a monopoly in search and search advertising. While Google hasn’t proposed selling Chrome and plans to appeal the decision, the trial has raised broader questions about how its web infrastructure – including Chrome – could reinforce its dominance in AI and online services.

During his testimony, Turley said OpenAI had reached out to Google in mid-2023 to seek access to the latter’s search index to improve ChatGPT’s accuracy and performance. Google declined the request, citing competition concerns.

OpenAI currently relies on Microsoft’s Bing but is building its own search index – a project Turley admitted will take years. “Search technology is a necessary component,” Turley said, adding that ChatGPT struggles with accuracy on time-sensitive queries without real-time search access.

Since the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022, OpenAI has aimed to move beyond traditional chatbot functionality. Turley described the company’s broader goal as creating a “super assistant” capable of helping users complete complex tasks, conduct research, and interact with the web in more useful ways.

OpenAI has introduced features like web browsing, coding, and tools for automating real-world actions, like making reservations on behalf of users. But even with new capabilities, Turley said OpenAI still depends heavily on access to high-quality search data. Internally, the company has set a goal of handling 80% of search queries, but Turley admitted during testimony that reaching that benchmark will take more time. One challenge has been websites limiting OpenAI’s web crawler, restricting the startup’s ability to gather the necessary data to train and refine its search functionality.

Turley also described the competitive pressure OpenAI faces from Google. “Google can outspend us or offer more traffic to these partners than we can,” he said. “They have way more queries every single day.” He added that Google already provides search access to other companies, including Meta, and that OpenAI hoped to reach a similar agreement. Google did not respond formally to OpenAI’s proposal in writing, Turley said.

The court testimony is a part of the Justice Department’s argument that Google’s control over search data creates an uneven playing field in the search market.

Under the DOJ’s proposed remedies, Google could be required to share parts of its search index with rivals to allow more competition in online search services, and thereby, for AI. Turley said such a move would accelerate OpenAI’s product development and reduce reliance on single providers.

“Having access to the data that underlies Google’s index, the content or signals, would accelerate the development of our own index,” he said.

The conversation around search dominance has also brought renewed attention to Google’s longstanding default agreements with device makers. The court, under Judge Amit Mehta, has found that Google maintained its market share by securing exclusive deals with manufacturers like Samsung and major telecoms carriers to make its search engine the default on new Android devices.

Documents presented at trial indicated Google also explored bundling search, Chrome, and its Gemini AI assistant into such deals, though recent contracts with firms like Samsung, Motorola, AT&T, and Verizon have moved away from such exclusive arrangements.

Even so, the DOJ is pushing for further restrictions, including a ban on financial incentives tied to default installations. Google has reiterated that its agreements don’t prevent companies from offering rival AI tools. Google executive Peter Fitzgerald testified that letters were sent to partners as recently as last week to clarify that they are free to include other AI services on their devices.

As the court evaluates whether Google should be required to share its search data or divest from products like Chrome, broader concerns around digital infrastructure and security are becoming clearer. Vincentas Baubonis, head of research at Cybernews, noted that Chrome is more than just a browser – it also plays a major role in online security. “When the Department of Justice urged the forced sale of Google Chrome, it may have cracked open a new front in the cybersecurity debate,” Baubonis said. “At stake is more than corporate market share because Chrome isn’t merely a browser. It’s an active, adaptive security platform.”

In 2024, Google said it blocked over five billion malicious ads and suspended nearly 40 million advertiser accounts engaged in fraud. Much of that enforcement is supported by Chrome’s integration with services like Android and Gmail. Baubonis cautioned that spinning Chrome off to a new owner could compromise that interconnected defence model.

While a divestiture could open the market to more browser competition – and potentially improve privacy-focused alternatives – Baubonis warned that it could also disrupt Google’s integrated cybersecurity pipeline. Without that data flow, responses to fast-evolving threats could slow down, especially if Chrome ends up under less technically-capable or under-resourced management.

“There’s also a geopolitical wrinkle,” Baubonis added. “If Chrome’s sale creates fragmentation or inconsistent standards, adversarial actors – state-sponsored or otherwise – could exploit the confusion.” He emphasised that governments should avoid conflating market dominance with essential digital infrastructure.

“Monopolies shouldn’t be allowed to insulate themselves with security fearmongering. But neither should governments pretend that technology infrastructure is interchangeable.”

As regulators and courts consider potential remedies, Gareth Mills, partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, compared the current case to the DOJ’s pursuit of Microsoft in the 1990s. “The DOJ’s stance does appear robust, but in actuality, the likelihood of a swift resolution that requires Google to make sweeping changes to its business structure in the immediate term is remote,” Mills said. He added that although the initial Microsoft ruling called for a breakup, the case ultimately ended with a negotiated settlement and additional regulatory oversight, not structural change.

“That is not to minimise the importance of this case or the potential ramifications for Google, but anyone who expects a dramatic impact in the immediate term may be disappointed.”

As part of the wider antitrust scrutiny, Google also confirmed this week that it would not roll out a standalone prompt in Chrome to manage third-party cookies. Users will continue to have to maintain their preferences through Chrome’s privacy settings, rather than a simple ‘opt-out’ button they can click once.

The announcement comes amid broader legal challenges to the company’s dominance in online advertising. Whether the court orders Google to share its search data or spin off Chrome, the proceedings reflect a growing convergence between antitrust enforcement, AI development, and digital security. As Baubonis noted, the question is no longer just about competition – it’s also about how to preserve trust in the infrastructure that dominates much of the internet.