Perplexity Makes $34.5B Bid for Google Chrome: Could Google Let It Go?

This is breaking news that has taken the tech world by surprise. AI startup Perplexity AI has made a bold bid to buy Google Chrome. The offer price — $34.5B. This comes close on the heels of Perplexity AI launching its radical AI-native browser, Comet. The company said that its inherent AI embedded into the core browser redefines the search experience, as unlike other browsers, it’s not an optional plugin.

Let’s come to this rather audacious play Perplexity has made. Perplexity, which is valued at close to $18B has made this bid. This development, first reported in the Wall Street Journal, stated that Perplexity AI has made an unsolicited, all-cash bid of about $34.5B to buy Google’s Chrome browser, pitching it as a public-interest remedy in the U.S. search antitrust case. However, Google has not shown any appetite to sell Chrome, nor responded to Perplexity’s bid. Despite the impracticality at this point in time, why this offer now?

Why Chrome Is a Killer App for Perplexity

We all know that Chrome is the gateway to billions of users and default-search placement and has a lion’s share in the browser market. For instance, going by recent third-party data (StatCounter Global Stats; Wikipedia’s “Usage share of web browsers”; G2’s “Browser Usage Statistics 2025”) shows Chrome at roughly two-thirds of global browser usage, around 66–68% worldwide, with Safari near 16–18% and Edge around 5%.

What Perplexity Actually Put on the Table

It is in this backdrop that Perplexity’s bid comes. Going by available information, the bid seems to include three notable pledges: one, keep Chromium open source; two, invest $3 billion over two years into Chrome/Chromium; and three, retain Google as the default search engine. The offer is all-cash, with financing claimed from “multiple large investment funds.”

But if one looks at the timing, there is more to it. And the major one is the antitrust legal tangle Google is in right now.

The Legal Backdrop of Google’s Problems

Let’s dig into Google’s antitrust timeline. The U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states sued Google way back in 2020, arguing that paying Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, and others to make Google the default search engine foreclosed rivals from scale and entrenched Google’s dominance in search and search advertising.

Adding more fire to it, in August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta bluntly ruled Google “is a monopolist” and maintained that its default bias and the scale advantages those distribution agreements created were problematic.

The court also found Google’s exclusive default contracts were exclusionary and that purported benefits could be achieved by nonexclusive arrangements without the same anticompetitive effects.

What is the status right now? As per available reports, the court is now deciding how to fix the monopoly, with the DOJ urging structural and behavioral remedies, including divesting the Chrome browser and Chromium project, prohibiting default-search payment deals, and requiring Google to share certain search and ad data with competitors to restore competition.

Reports also suggest that Judge Mehta heard weeks of testimony and closing arguments by late May, indicating a remedies decision was expected by August. Google, on its part, has signaled it will appeal whatever is ordered. Reports also cite that the DOJ’s remedies are framed to be forward-looking, addressing AI distribution and preventing Google from extending its dominance to products like Gemini.

Can a Court Really Make Google Sell Chrome?

Now comes a crucial question — can a court really make Google sell Chrome? The answer is yes. Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, courts can order structural remedies, which may include divestiture, if it deems fit and necessary to stop unlawful monopoly maintenance. The Microsoft case established that authority, even though the breakup order was ultimately vacated and remanded.

If you are wondering why they are citing the Microsoft example, let’s go back and dig into that timeline. Think of Microsoft as the playbook and Google as the sequel. In the 1990s, courts found Microsoft used Windows’ gateway power to box out rival browsers and said judges can impose strong, carefully tailored fixes. Today, the claim is that Google used gateways like default search deals and control points such as Chrome to protect its search dominance, so the court will choose remedies that directly loosen those choke points — mirroring Microsoft’s principle that remedies must “fit the wrong” to restore real competition.

It’s all about a level playing field and parity — that’s what the courts are saying. Coming back to Google, here, the DOJ has explicitly proposed a Chrome/Chromium divestiture (alongside behavioral measures) to fix the distribution and data choke points the court found problematic.

Google’s Stance: Resist, Appeal, Delay

Like any company, given Google’s might, it is fighting the case. Google argues that a forced sale would harm security, privacy, and product quality, and puts forth the argument that narrower measures aimed at default-search deals should suffice. Given this template, one can expect appeals and a push to stay any structural remedy; there’s no signal Google would voluntarily entertain Perplexity’s bid or, for that matter, a forced sell-off.

If Chrome Leaves Google: What Actually Changes

But we all know courts are powerful, if given a judgment, the companies have to comply. So let’s hypothetically look at the impact of a possible Chrome sell-off. The ramifications will be felt across:

Search distribution and competition: Separating Chrome from Google could reduce its privileged defaults and shift share toward rivals, especially if courts also curb paid-default deals.

Ads and data signals: Decoupling Chrome from Google’s ad stack could disrupt targeting and measurement in the near term, impacting Google Ads automation and GA4 until new pathways mature.

Open-web ecosystem: Chrome anchors standards funding and engine stability; underinvestment by a new owner could slow platform progress unless Chromium governance and transition services are safeguarded.

Security and updates: Critics fear slower patches outside Google; proponents say secure update channels and Safe Browsing/Sync alternatives are viable with court-ordered cooperation.

If Perplexity Ends Up Owning Chrome: The Comet Question

Now, coming back to where we started — if Perplexity buys it and could keep Chrome as the mainstream, standards-first browser while layering opt-in AI assistance and folding Comet’s agentic features into unified roadmaps, then it makes for a great synergy. Why it makes sense is because Comet is also Chromium-based, extension-compatible, and assistant-heavy. This will give Perplexity more browser power and diversity while preserving Chrome’s familiarity and letting power users go full Comet.

…And the Obligations

Running Chrome means funding Chromium at scale, shipping rapid security updates, operating sync and extension ecosystems, and stewarding standards. Perplexity will get into a multi-billion-dollar commitment for running the show — it’s an ongoing operational spend, not just the purchase.

What to Watch Next : What Happens Now?

Going by reports, Chrome’s standalone value is pegged anywhere between $20 billion and $50 billion, and Perplexity placing it at $34.5 billion is a good mid-range. Perplexity has raised roughly $1–1.5 billion ( to date), so the all-cash bid relies heavily on external financing. Most analysts call the offer a long shot rooted on a court-ordered divestiture, given Chrome’s strategic role in Google’s search and AI roadmap and the monopoly narrative.

Judge Amit Mehta’s remedies decision was guided for “about August 2025” after the April–May remedies trial. Any structural order would trigger appeals and potentially years of litigation and transition planning. Regardless of the outcome, the case will reset how defaults, distribution, and data operate across browsers, mobile platforms, and AI assistants.

At the end of the day, Perplexity’s bold bid is both a headline-grabbing moonshot and a strategic signal to the court: “If you order divestiture, we’re ready to chip in.” For Google, Chrome still underwrites distribution, data, and standards influence, so a voluntary sale looks unlikely.

This leads to the decisive question: it’s not about whether Perplexity can pay; Chrome is necessary and properly tailored to fix the proven competitive harm in search. Only then would any sale process, buyer vetting, and financing actually matter.