The Chrome Gambit: How AI Startups are Fighting for the Browser that Controls the Web

An AI startup just tried to buy the world’s most important browser.

On Aug 12, Perplexity AI made an unsolicited $34.5 billion all-cash offer to acquire Google’s Chrome, Bloomberg reported.

Perplexity says big investors would provide the money for the purchase.

Beyond this it says it will spend another $3 billion improving Chrome and its open-source version, Chromium.

It also promises to keep Google as the default search engine in Chrome.

But people could change it if they want.

Google hasn’t responded. The offer comes as a US judge considers penalties for Google’s breaking the law by unfairly controlling the search market.

One possible penalty is forcing Google to sell Chrome.

Why Chrome matters

Chrome isn’t just a web browser—it’s the main entry point to the internet for billions of people.

It powers Google’s search adverts and influences what shows up in search results.

It is also the anchor for Google services like accounts, passwords, payments, extensions, security, and updates.

With about 65–70% of the global browser market and roughly 3–3.5 billion users, whoever controls Chrome’s address bar controls what people see first.

And in the AI search era, that control is hugely valuable.

For Perplexity and other AI search competitors, owning Chrome would slash marketing costs.

It would also give them direct data to improve AI assistants.

It would also let them build those assistants right into the browser.

That’s why Perplexity promises to keep Chrome’s core (Chromium) open, make no hidden changes, and keep Google as the default search engine—at least for now.

This in a way reassure both regulators and advertisers that nothing will break overnight.

What the judge could actually do

This isn’t just talk, the US Justice Department’s proposed remedies for Google’s search monopoly case.

Remedies include the option of forcing Google to sell Chrome, along with rules on data sharing and default search deals.

Judge Amit Mehta has even suggested that selling Chrome might be a cleaner, more effective fix than years of behavioral restrictions.

Google calls the idea ‘unprecedented’ and says it will appeal anything it believes would harm users or weaken security.

But, credible buyers lined up matters, because it signals to the court that such a sale is realistic.

That’s why Perplexity went public with a financed $34.5 billion bid before any ruling.

The challenge

The challenge isn’t just paying the price—it’s running Chrome.

Chrome is effectively a piece of global internet infrastructure.

It handles security updates across platforms, manages website safety checks and supports enterprise IT policies.

It also stays compliant with many countries’ rules, runs the extension ecosystem, and maintains Chromium used by other browsers.

Perplexity says it would hire much of Chrome’s existing team and invest $3 billion over two years into its development.

Google warns that selling Chrome could hurt security and break its connections to services like Google accounts, Android features, and ad privacy tools.

Some industry analysts and security chiefs share that concern, especially about keeping Chrome’s fast security update pace and threat intelligence.

Is $34.5B a real price?

Short answer: the chances of a $34.5 billion Chrome sale going through at that price are probably low.

Independent estimates suggest Chrome is worth far more.

$50 billon+, DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg told the court Chrome could sell for “upwards of $50 billion.”

$100 billion, Baird analyst Colin Sebastian values it near $100 billion, mainly based on the search revenue that flows through Chrome’s address bar.

Even without factoring in Android or advertising tech, this makes $34.5 billion look like more of a strategic opening bid than a realistic final price.

For context, Perplexity itself is valued at about $18 billion. The company says outside investors, not its own balance sheet, would fully fund the deal in cash.

That approach mirrors how a court-ordered sale might actually work.

A buyer consortium or private-equity vehicle backed by strict promises to keep Chrome stable, would be a good bet.

Who else could buy—and pass muster?

OpenAI has shown interest in buying Chrome.

The strategic logic is clear, integrating an AI assistant directly into the address bar, would be a good move.

But the deal would raise questions about OpenAI’s ties to Microsoft and how default settings might be handled.

Other potential buyers come up from time to time, such as Yahoo/Apollo and private equity groups.

They’d have to design a governance model that convinces regulators Chrome wouldn’t be locked into one company’s advertising system.

Major tech platforms like Apple, Microsoft, or Meta are unlikely candidates because they’re already under intense antitrust scrutiny.

Another possibility could be a foundation or consortium – similar to Mozilla – that runs Chrome independently

Regulatory design matters more than the buyer

If Chrome is ever sold, the court will have to spell out exactly what’s included in the deal such as defining Chrome.

The Justice Department’s has left it to a technical committee to decide what the sale would include.

Would it include only the code or also the APIs, services, Safe Browsing security feeds, and update systems?

Get this wrong, and the buyer could end up with just the name, not the real capabilities.

It would also be important do understand defaults and search economics.

If Google stays the default search engine at first—as Perplexity suggests—how long would that last, and on what terms?

Would the new owner auction the default slot, rotate providers, or show users an equal-choice screen?

Other key things to define would include data access parity – considering that court ordered Chrome to license search data to all engines at marginal cost and security guarantees, in which case a handover would likely require approvals from a variety of stakeholders.

The base case vs. the long shot

Most likely scenario: Judge Mehta issued remedies such as banning exclusive default search deals, requiring data sharing, and enforcing equal treatment for all search providers.

Possibly with a built-in trigger for a future Chrome sale if competition doesn’t improve.

Google would appeal, meaning Chrome stays under its control for the foreseeable future.

Less likely but cleaner scenario: The court ordered Chrome to be spun off with a closely managed handover.

If that happens, Perplexity’s early, fully financed bid puts it on the map as a credible player, even if the winning buyer ends up being a larger consortium.

Perplexity’s move matters even if nothing happens right away because it normalizes the idea that someone other than Google could operate Chrome without breaking the internet.

It also secures Perplexity a spot on regulators’ short list of serious buyers and it reframes the debate before any ruling drops.

In the AI assistant era, the address bar is the ultimate distribution prize, and Perplexity is willing to pay for that advantage – not just invest in AI models.

At $34.5 billion, the bid looks like an opening gambit—a public marker meant to shape the remedies discussion and investor expectations.

If Chrome is ever forced out of Google’s hands, the real price is likely to be $50–100 billion or more, with strict rules on defaults, data sharing, and security.

And Google will almost certainly fight any such order all the way through the appeals process.

This is the address-bar era of AI. Whoever controls it controls the flow of internet, the training data, and the monetization surface.

Perplexity just made a gutsy play to own that surface, or at least to ensure the court imagines a world where Google doesn’t.

Whether it’s a signal or sale, it’s the clearest proof yet that the real platform in AI search isn’t the model. It’s the distribution.