A surprise $34.5B gambit from an AI upstart
In a move that few in tech or antitrust circles saw coming, AI search startup Perplexity publicly offered $34.5 billion to buy Google’s Chrome—but only if the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or courts ultimately require Alphabet to divest the world’s most-used browser as part of ongoing antitrust remedies. The company filed the offer with regulators and posted supporting commentary online, immediately escalating stakes in one of Big Tech’s most closely watched legal battles.
Perplexity’s proposal—made amid remedy discussions stemming from the DOJ’s search monopoly case—argues that Chrome should not automatically be sold to the highest bidder from Big Tech. Instead, the AI search challenger says the asset should go to a neutral, innovation-focused buyer to ensure competition, pledging to keep Chrome interoperable while separating it from Google’s search defaults.
Why Chrome, and why now?
Chrome is both a browser and a distribution superpower: its default settings funnel billions of queries to Google services. In the DOJ case’s remedy phase, potential requirements include structural changes to reduce that advantage. By putting a concrete number on the table, Perplexity is signaling it would break that linkage—and, by extension, weaken Google’s most reliable traffic pipeline. Bloomberg reported that the DOJ could take 60–90 days to evaluate such proposals, underlining how fluid the endgame is.
Perplexity framed the move as pro-competition. It also suggested other independent bidders—including DuckDuckGo and browser maker Arc—should be invited to submit offers, widening the pool beyond platform giants. Reuters’ reporting adds a notable wrinkle: Perplexity’s offer includes an unusual 2.3% monthly price reduction (a “ticking fee”) if a sale is delayed, a mechanism often used in M&A to encourage timely closure.
What’s actually for sale?
To be clear, nothing is for sale yet. Alphabet has not agreed to divest Chrome, nor has the court mandated it. But remedial divestitures are a live possibility in landmark antitrust cases when conduct remedies are deemed insufficient. If the court or regulators choose a structural remedy, they must still determine what exactly is spun out (code, trademarks, teams, distribution contracts, default agreements) and on what terms. The Verge’s coverage notes that Perplexity appears ready to shepherd Chrome as a cross-platform, search-agnostic browser with user-choice at its core, positioning it as an antidote to vertically integrated defaults.
The startup calculus behind the Perplexity Chrome bid
Perplexity, valued in the billions after recent funding, has been racing to differentiate in the AI-answer engine race against OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft. Owning Chrome—or even meaningfully shaping the debate—would supercharge distribution for its conversational search. Even if the bid is ultimately rejected, the company has seized the narrative, portraying itself as a consumer-friendly steward who would decouple browsing from any single search engine.
Strategically, this move does three things for the startup:
- Forces a public conversation about who should control web distribution in the age of AI answers, not just blue links.
- Signals regulatory alignment, framing Perplexity as a remedy-oriented buyer, not merely a speculative bidder.
- Pressures rivals to reveal their own remedy preferences—or to mount bids that could be scrutinized for anti-competitive risk.
Industry reaction: supportive rivals, skeptical incumbents
Perplexity’s naming of DuckDuckGo and Arc as suitable buyers is a calculated olive branch to privacy-first and innovation-centric rivals, suggesting the company would accept an outcome where another independent player acquires the asset. Meanwhile, tech policy watchers caution that spinning off Chrome raises operational questions: how to maintain Chromium’s open-source governance, how to manage search-deal revenue that funds browser development, and how to handle default agreements with OEMs. The Verge and Bloomberg both point out that regulators may also consider non-sale remedies, such as choice screens or contractual constraints on default settings and rev-share deals—options with precedent in both EU and U.S. cases.
Alphabet has not commented extensively on Perplexity’s specific bid. Historically, Google has argued that users choose its products because of quality, not coercion, and that Chromium’s open ecosystem mitigates concerns. If forced to divest, Alphabet would fight to preserve innovation tempo and brand integrity—raising questions over whether the Chrome name and engineering leadership would transfer intact.
The antitrust lens: does this remedy “work”?
From a remedies perspective, selling Chrome to an independent startup could, in theory, reduce vertical incentives to favor Google services. But enforcement veterans note that a remedy must be workable: the buyer needs capital, engineering heft, and ecosystem trust to manage Chromium updates, security patches, web standards participation, and multi-platform distribution. Reuters’ reporting that Perplexity built a ticking fee into its offer suggests the startup understands the risk of regulatory drift; long timelines can erode asset value and team cohesion.
The DOJ faces a broader dilemma: AI is rapidly changing how information is surfaced. If answers, not links, become the default interface, then the true “bottleneck” may shift from browsers to answer engines and their training data access. Bloomberg notes the agency’s clock is ticking; any remedy must anticipate markets that evolve faster than courtroom timelines.
What to watch next
- Regulatory posture: Will the DOJ request more information from Perplexity and other potential buyers during the remedy phase?
- Counter-bids: Do DuckDuckGo, Arc, or even private-equity consortia float terms that address governance, funding, and neutrality?
- Browser distribution deals: How OEMs and carriers react if Chrome’s defaults are reworked or re-auctioned under a new owner.
- AI integration: If Perplexity gains any stewardship, expect rapid integration of its answer engine into browser UI—raising fresh competition questions.
No matter the outcome, the Perplexity Chrome bid has already reframed the remedy debate: the browser is no longer an unquestioned extension of Google’s search empire. It could, for the first time in a decade, be truly up for grabs.
