I don't see this ending well. A number of factors are in play:
1.) Anyone who can afford to buy Chrome is probably some huge company people will be fearful of owning and misusing the dominant browser. That company will use (and possibly sell) user data. The browser will default to directing users to that company's products and services.
2.) The user base seems to want browsers to be free, so companies will find ways to monetize browsers, just as FaceBook does user data. These are businesses, not charities, producing polished, quality software products and maintaining them is expensive and requires strong technical expertise, and that's an investment for the company, not a donation to the public.
And companies out to turn a buck tend to turn our more polished products that the user base likes. Otherwise, why doesn't Linux dominate the desktop and notebook computer market? What about those free Microsoft Office alternatives? Why is FireFox, a fairly well-known brand name browser, not dominant?
3.) Much of the public doesn't like hair-splitting over browsers, the way some here might agonize over a base M4 vs. M4 Pro Mac Mini and how much internal storage and RAM to go with. They just want it to 'work right out of the box.' 'Googling' is synonymous with online search, and for all the criticism it gets, a lot of people are happy with it.
So one browser will dominate the market, likely a swing back to Microsoft Edge if Chrome dies. Remember the decades of animosity against Microsoft, seen as a monopolistic company bent on being #1 (and near only) in anything related to computing? Threats to break it up?
Will the world be a better place with Edge dominating over Chrome?
4.) What company is willing and able to buy Chrome and use it to make money that's not going to run afoul of governmental and public sentiment just as Google has? Microsoft? Meta? Maybe Elon Musk could do it, I'm sure that'd go over great!
5.) What is the rationale for prohibiting Google from creating another browser, the idea it's 'wrong' to have a product you can leverage for the benefit of the other? Hah! WordPerfect (when it was its own thing, instead of being passed around by various companies) might've thought that about MicroSoft Office! Lotus 1-2-3 might've thought the same, about Excel in Office. I doubt that leveraging one product to benefit profits from another is rare. What next, McDonalds can't ask if you want fries with that?
6.) Browsers are generally free, there are several widely available, and some get pushed by big companies (e.g.: Edge and Safari, and FireFox is well known), and yet...the public chose Chrome.
7.) We benefit from heavy market dominance at times. When I visit PC Magazine online using Safari, fairly often when loading an article it basically stalls out, or parts of the page load slow or go blank as I try to scroll, it's often quit a mess. But I fire up Chrome and it works fine.
Similarly, I'm okay with Google - I have no urge to 'Yahoo!' And I don't 'Bing' things much.
8.) Don't create unnecessary problems and aggravations for the user base. I mainly use Safari; that way my address info. and other things auto-fill online forms. When our kid uses my Mac desktop instead of her notebook PC, Safari is set to auto-login to her Google Classroom account for school, but then Google Maps doesn't work for me because she doesn't have some sort of permission from the school (and trying to log her out and me in didn't fix anything), so I use Google Chrome when I want to use Google Maps or post replies to YouTube videos.
Like a lot of people, I have little workarounds I've concocted for home computing problems over the years. Maybe not the best ways of doing things, but it's working. The government suddenly messing with a product used and enjoyed by hordes of people sounds disruptive.
