Google's Search Monopoly Faces Scrutiny as AI Reshapes the Web

Google and DOJ tussle over how AI will remake the web in antitrust closing arguments

From its humble beginnings in the late 20th century, Google has come to dominate online searches, putting it squarely in the US government's antitrust crosshairs. The ongoing search antitrust case threatens to upend Google's dominance, giving smaller players a chance to thrive and possibly wiping others out. After wrapping up testimony in the case earlier this month, lawyers for Google and the Department of Justice have now made their closing arguments. The DOJ won the initial trial, securing a ruling that Google used anticompetitive practices to maintain its monopoly in general search. During the time this case has taken to meander its way through the legal system, the online landscape has been radically altered, making it harder than ever to envision a post-Google Internet. To address Google's monopoly, the DOJ is asking United States District Judge Amit Mehta to impose limits on Google's business dealings and order a divestment of the Chrome browser. Forcing the sale of Chrome would be a major penalty and a coup for the DOJ lawyers, but this issue has been overshadowed somewhat as the case drags on. During closing arguments, the two sides dueled over how Google's search deals and the rise of AI could change the Internet as we know it. Collateral damage This case has examined the myriad ways Google used its influence and money to suppress competition. One of the DOJ's main targets is the placement deals Google signs with companies like Apple and Mozilla to be the default search provider. Google has contended that people can change the defaults anytime they wish, but the DOJ produced evidence at trial that almost no one does, and Google knows that. During closing arguments, Mehta asked both sides about testimony from a Mozilla executive alleging that losing the Google search deal could destroy the company. Similarly, Apple's Eddie Cue said he loses sleep over the possibility of losing the Google revenue -- unsurprising as the arrangement is believed to net the company $20 billion per year. The DOJ's David Dahlquist admitted that there could be some "private impact" but contended Apple and Mozilla are overestimating the risk. Mehta didn't seem totally satisfied with the government's position, noting that he didn't want to damage other markets in an effort to fix search. Google's counsel also went after the government on the privacy front. One of the DOJ's proposed remedies would require Google to license its search index and algorithm, which CEO Sundar Pichai claimed was no better than a spinoff of Google's core product. Google also claims that forcing it to license search would put everyone's privacy at risk because it has a vast amount of user data that fuels search. Google attorney John Schmidtlein said the DOJ's treatment of user privacy in the remedies was a "complete failure." Mehta questioned the government lawyers pointedly on the issue of privacy, which he noted was barely addressed in the remedy filings. The DOJ's Adam Severt suggested an independent committee would have to be empaneled to decide how to handle Google's user data, but he was vague on how long such a process could take. Google's team didn't like this idea at all. Case may hinge on AI During testimony in early May, Mehta commented that the role AI plays in the trial had evolved very quickly. In 2023, everyone in his courtroom agreed that the impact of AI on search was still years away, and that's definitely not the case now. That same thread is present in closing arguments. Mehta asked the DOJ's Dahlquist if someone new was just going to "come off the sidelines" and build a new link-based search product, given the developments with AI. Dahlquist didn't answer directly, noting that although generative AI products didn't exist at the time covered by the antitrust action, they would be key to search going forward. Google certainly believes the AI future is already here -- it has gone all-in with AI search over the past year. At the same time, Google is seeking to set itself apart from AI upstarts. "Generative AI companies are not trying to out-Google Google," said Schmidtlein. Google's team contends that its actions have not harmed any AI products like ChatGPT or Perplexity, and at any rate, they are not in the search market as defined by the court. Mehta mused about the future of search, suggesting we may have to rethink what a general search engine is in 2025. "Maybe people don't want 10 blue links anymore," he said. The Chromium problem and an elegant solution At times during the case, Mehta has expressed skepticism about the divestment of Chrome. During closing arguments, Dahlquist reiterated the close relationship between search and browsers, reminding the court that 35 percent of Google's search volume comes from Chrome. Mehta now seems more receptive to a Chrome split than before, perhaps in part because the effects of the other remedies are becoming so murky. He called the Chrome divestment "less speculative" and "more elegant" than the data and placement remedies. Google again claimed, as it has throughout the remedy phase, that forcing it to give up Chrome is unsupported in the law and that Chrome's dominance is a result of innovation. Even if Mehta leans toward ordering this remedy, Chromium may be a sticking point. The judge seems unconvinced that the supposed buyers -- a group which apparently includes almost every major tech firm -- have the scale and expertise needed to maintain Chromium. This open source project forms the foundation of many other browsers, making its continued smooth operation critical to the web. If Google gives up Chrome, Chromium goes with it, but what about the people who maintain it? The DOJ contends that it's common for employees to come along with an acquisition, but that's far from certain. There was some discussion of ensuring a buyer could commit to hiring staff to maintain Chromium. The DOJ suggests Google could be ordered to provide financial incentives to ensure critical roles are filled, but that sounds potentially messy. A Chrome sale seems more likely now than it did earlier, but nothing is assured yet. Following the final arguments from each side, it's up to Mehta to mull over the facts before deciding Google's fate. That's expected to happen in August, but nothing will change for Google right away. The company has already confirmed it will appeal the case, hoping to have the original ruling overturned. It could still be years before this case reaches its ultimate conclusion.

Google and DOJ to make final push in US search antitrust case

WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - Alphabet's Google (GOOGL.O), opens new tab and U.S. antitrust enforcers will make their final arguments on whether the tech giant should be forced to sell its Chrome browser or adopt other measures to restore competition in online search, as the blockbuster antitrust trial concludes on Friday. The U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states are pressing to make Google not only sell Chrome, but also share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab and other smartphone makers and wireless carriers that set Google as the default search engine on new devices. The proposals aim to restore competition after a judge found last year that Google illegally dominates the online search and related advertising markets. Artificial intelligence companies could get a boost after already rattling Google's status as the go-to tool to find information online. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is overseeing the trial, which began in April. He has said he aims to rule on the proposals by August. If the judge does require Google to sell off Chrome, OpenAI would be interested in buying it, Nick Turley, OpenAI's product head for ChatGPT, said at the trial. OpenAI would also benefit from access to Google's search data, which would help it make responses to user inquiries more accurate and up to date, Turley said. Google says the proposals go far beyond what is legally justified by the court's ruling, and would give away its technology to competitors. The company has already begun loosening agreements with smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics (005930.KS), opens new tab to allow them to load rival search and AI products. The DOJ wants the judge to go farther, banning Google from making lucrative payments in exchange for installation of its search app. Reporting by Jody Godoy in Washington; Editing by Richard Chang Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab Suggested Topics:Boards, Policy & RegulationRegulatory Oversight Jody Godoy Thomson Reuters Jody Godoy reports on tech policy and antitrust enforcement, including how regulators are responding to the rise of AI. Reach her at jody.godoy@thomsonreuters.com

Google, Justice Department face off in climactic showdown in search monopoly case

Google will return to federal court Friday to fend off the U.S. Justice Department's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it's navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence that could undercut its power. The legal and technological threats facing Google are among the key issues that will be dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared as an illegal monopoly by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers will attempt to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google lawyers are expected to assert only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. "Over weeks of testimony, we heard from a series of well-funded companies eager to gain access to Google's technology so they don't have to innovate themselves," Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post earlier this month. "What we didn't hear was how DOJ's extreme proposals would benefit consumers." After the day-long closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine i nto an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines "does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship" of their personal information. The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department's proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry. Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realize their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. "Developers will be overcome by uncertainty" if Google is torn apart, the group argues. Buy Y Combinator, an incubator that has helped create hundreds of startups collectively worth about $800 billion filed documents pushing for the dramatic overhaul of Google, whose immense power has discouraged venture capitalists from investing in areas that are considered to be part of the company's "kill zone." Startups "also need to be able to get their products into the hands of users, free from restrictive dealing and self-preferencing that locks up important distribution channels. As things stand, Google has locked up the most critical distribution channels, freezing the general search and search text advertising markets into static competition for more than a decade," Y Combinator told Mehta.

Judge Hears Final Arguments on How to Fix Google's Search Monopoly

The DealBook Newsletter Our columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and his Times colleagues help you make sense of major business and policy headlines -- and the power-brokers who shape them. Get it sent to your inbox. Judge Amit P. Mehta has some tough decisions to make about Google. That much was clear on Friday as the federal judge, who sits on the U.S. District Court in Washington, peppered lawyers for the Justice Department and the tech company with questions during closing arguments over about how best to fix the company's search monopoly. The conclusion of the three-week hearing means the decision will now be in the hands of the judge, who is expected to issue a ruling by August. The government has asked the court to force Google to sell Chrome, its popular web browser, and share the data behind its search results with rivals. The company has countered with a far narrower proposal. Judge Mehta, who ruled last year that the company had broken antitrust laws to maintain its dominance in search, quickly turned his attention Friday to artificial intelligence, which many tech experts expect to upend search. Given that A.I. products are already changing the tech industry, the judge said he was grappling with questions about whether the proposals could lead a new challenger to "come off the sidelines and build a general search engine." "Does the government believe that there is a market for a new search engine to emerge" as we think of one today, he asked. The government argued that A.I. products were connected to the future of search. Judge Mehta's ruling could reshape a company synonymous with online search at a pivotal moment. Google is in a fierce race with other tech companies, including Microsoft, Meta and the startup OpenAI, to convince consumers to use generative A.I. tools that can spit out humanlike answers to questions. Judge Mehta's ruling could directly hamper Google's efforts to develop its own A.I. or offer a leg up to its competitors as they race to build their own new versions of A.I.-powered search. In addition, Judge Mehta's decision will signal whether the government's recent push to rein in the biggest tech companies through a series of antitrust lawsuits can result in significant changes to the way they do business. The Justice Department is also pursuing a breakup of Google after winning a case earlier this year over its monopoly in some portions of the advertising technology business, and it has sued Apple on the grounds the company makes it difficult for consumers to ditch the iPhone. The Federal Trade Commission squared off against Meta in a trial this spring over claims it snuffed out nascent rivals and has also sued Amazon, arguing the company squeezes small sellers that use its site. The Justice Department and a group of states filed the case over Google search in 2020, under the first Trump administration. They argued at a 2023 trial that Google had boxed out competitors by paying billions to companies like Apple, Samsung and Mozilla to automatically display the Google search engine on smartphones and in web browsers. As Google used those deals to attract more users, it gathered more data and made its search engine better, locking in an advantage over alternatives like Microsoft's Bing. Judge Mehta agreed. In a landmark ruling in August, he said that Google "is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly." For three weeks starting April 21, the judge held a hearing to determine how he should address that problem. Lawyers for the government argued that Google, without significant intervention by the court, would be able to parlay its dominance in online search into dominance in A.I.-powered search. Google had already started using the same search-boosting playbook to enhance its A.I. chatbot Gemini, they said. The government called witnesses from OpenAI, which makes the ChatGPT chatbot, and search rivals who said that access to Google's search data would help them compete. Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of services, testified that consumers were already using A.I. chatbot apps to search for information instead of going through Apple's web browser, Safari, which automatically pulls up Google. "The reason why we're seeing less searches already in Safari is because people are downloading these apps, they are already doing this," he said. "But they do have to get better." Google countered during the hearing that the government's proposal would constitute a huge legal overreach and endanger products that are good for consumers. The company said the judge should instead focus on the deals with Apple, Samsung and others, by requiring Google to give those companies more flexibility than in earlier versions of the agreements. On Friday, the Justice Department's lead lawyer, David Dahlquist, opened by saying that the government wanted to "pry open competition." "Rather than provide this court with remedies designed to restore competition, Google presented this court with milquetoast remedies that it knows will maintain the status quo," Mr. Dahlquist said. "But try as it might, Google cannot escape the facts of this case." But Judge Mehta quickly pushed Mr. Dahlquist to defend the government's core argument that the court should take steps to ensure that Google could not dominate the competition for A.I. Judge Mehta noted that A.I. had hardly come up during the 2023 trial to determine whether Google had broken the law, and questioned how he should think about the new technology in relation to the monopoly he found that Google held over general online search services. "We spent a lot of time in this remedies phase talking about A.I.," he said. "If it's not part of the search market, how is it associated with the legal framework, with the remedies that you're asking for?"

Judge doubts Chrome breakup will fix Google Search monopoly in AI era

Browser search bar with magnifier icon on screen, as judge questions Google's search dominance. (representational image) Google recently dominated headlines with its release of VEO-3, a cutting-edge AI video generation model that appears poised to monopolize the fast-growing generative video space. But even as the tech giant pushes deeper into AI, it's still fighting to maintain its grip on the more familiar territory of online search. At a pivotal hearing on Friday, a federal judge in Washington signaled he may not fully endorse the Justice Department's aggressive proposal to break up Google's dominance through drastic antitrust remedies.

Google and the DOJ wrap up a historic tech monopoly case: What to know

A woman walks past a Google logo at the Google Campus in Warsaw on Feb.13, 2025. SERGEI GAPON/AFP via Getty Images hide caption Nine months ago, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly in the search engine market. Today, the tech giant is back in court for closing arguments in the final phase of this trial. The judge will be left to decide how the company should be punished, concluding the biggest tech antitrust case in 25 years. During what's called the "remedies" phase of the trial, which began April 21, lawyers for Google and the Justice Department presented very different options for how they hope U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta will rule that the roughly $2-trillion-dollar company should atone for its monopoly. And the two sides remain far apart. Closing arguments, which are expected to last all day Friday at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C., give the two sides a final chance to argue their ideas to Mehta. The DOJ has urged the court to slap Google with aggressive remedies including forcing the sale of its incredibly popular Chrome browser and making the company license some of its core search technology. The tech company has strongly objected to these remedies. Google maintains the DOJ's proposals are out of line with legal precedent and have suggested much lighter alternatives, saying that they will stop making exclusive agreements with device makers to ensure Google is their default search engine, and that they will establish an oversight committee to check the company's actions. Here's what to know about the trial so far. The DOJ filed its case against Google in 2020, focusing on the company's contracts with device makers like Apple and Samsung that require Google to be the default search engine on new phones. The agency argued this unfairly boxed out competitors. Now, the DOJ wants Google to be barred from making these exclusive deals. "Unless Google's vast payments are eliminated, Google will likely win each search distribution opportunity, given the tremendous advantages it has accrued from over 10 years of monopoly maintenance," lawyers for the DOJ wrote in court filings ahead of closing arguments. And while the company has agreed to roll back those agreements, the DOJ's proposals go much further. The DOJ is also asking the judge to order Google to sell off its Chrome browser and the open source Chromium project. The government argues that Google's control of Chrome, the world's most popular browser, drives traffic to its search engine and revenue to the company -- which the DOJ calls an unfair advantage. The sale of Chrome, the DOJ argues, will even the playing field for competitors. And although the government's case originally focused on search, it now encompasses artificial intelligence. Lawyers for the DOJ want to prevent Google from establishing similar exclusive distribution agreements for its AI programs and apps, such as its Gemini chatbot. The DOJ says Google could use its artificial intelligence products to strengthen its monopoly in online search -- and to use the data from its powerful search index to become the dominant player in AI. Google's search index is essentially an enormous database of information from billions of webpages. In particular, the DOJ is focusing on the future of generative AI, or GenAI, which can be used to create text or images based on a user's prompts. "We are at an inflection point," the DOJ wrote in court documents. "Now GenAI offers the possibility of the next digital frontier, if given the opportunity and time to emerge. It is thus critical to extend remedies to GenAI to allow this new technology to rise or fall outside the shadow of Google's search monopoly." The DOJ argues that making Google share its index as well as search data -- like users' search queries, clicks and results -- with AI developers who want to license it will create fair competition. The DOJ called Nick Turley, OpenAI's head of product for ChatGPT, to testify in April. He said that his company would love to have access to Google's search index and data to strengthen their popular large language model. Turley also testified that OpenAI had previously tried to make a deal with Google to gain access to their search data, but Google declined, seeing them as a direct competitor. Google has argued that these remedies are too severe, calling them "unprecedented" and saying they would hurt consumers, the economy and tech innovation. In April, Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified that forcing the company to share its search data would be a "de facto divestiture" of its search engine, representing decades of investment and work. Google's lawyers have repeatedly argued that the company does not monopolize the AI market, because there are a host of AI companies with chatbots -- some of which are outperforming Gemini. And they have emphasized the cybersecurity and data security risks posed by spinning off Chrome and sharing search information. Spinning off Chrome would break it, rendering it "insecure and obsolete" and a "shadow of the current Chrome," Parisa Tabriz, vice president of engineering and general manager for Chrome, said in court. And Google has long argued that it can't vouch for the security of search data once it's shared with other companies. "DOJ's proposal would force Google to share your most sensitive and private search queries with companies you may never have heard of, jeopardizing your privacy and security," Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in an April blog post. "Your private information would be exposed, without your permission, to companies that lack Google's world-class security protections, where it could be exploited by bad actors." Several months of waiting. Mehta has indicated he expects to issue a decision in August. After a decision comes down, Google is expected to file a request for a stay of the remedies. If granted, the company won't have to immediately follow through with any of the penalties Mehta decides to levy. After that, Google officials have said they will file an appeal of Mehta's 2024 finding that the company violated antitrust laws. But that doesn't mean the tech giant is safe from further government scrutiny. Last week, Bloomberg reported that the Justice Department is investigating whether Google broke antitrust law in a deal with chatbot maker Character.AI. And in April, a federal judge found that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online advertising technology.

AI looms large as judge weighs remedies in Google Search antitrust case

Why it matters: At the endpoint of a historic tech antitrust case, there are still key questions about how online search works, what AI's role is and what Google owes its competitors in a landscape that has changed dramatically since the case was filed in 2020. The big picture: The case's conclusion is coming at a critical juncture as generative AI changes how people search the web and as Google shifts its main focus from traditional web search to AI products. Google has repeatedly argued people use Google Chrome because they like it; and that the companies it enters into exclusive distribution contracts with, like Mozilla, Samsung and Apple, benefit greatly. What they're saying: "Do you think someone is going to come off the sidelines and build a new general search engine in light of what we are now seeing happen in the AI space?" Judge Mehta asked DOJ lawyer David Dahlquist. The other side: "Generative AI companies are not trying to out-Google Google," said Google attorney John Schmidtlein. "They are not general search engines... they are something else." Inside the room: "This is a market that's been frozen in place for the best part of two decades," a senior DOJ official told reporters outside the courtroom, adding that a Chrome divestiture should be considered. What's next: Mehta is expected to issue a ruling on remedies in August, and Google plans to appeal the entire monopoly finding after this phase is over.

Google's antitrust case could hinge on the definition of AI

On the final day of the most consequential tech antitrust trial in decades, a question from the bench may have gotten to the core of Google's (GOOGL) defense: Could artificial intelligence already be doing what regulators hope to accomplish through the courts? U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who will soon decide whether Google should face structural penalties for allegedly monopolizing online search, asked Department of Justice attorneys Friday whether AI tools such as ChatGPT and Perplexity represent a new form of search -- or something else entirely. If AI is a new kind of search, that could be an entirely new kind of competition that weakens Google's dominance without judicial intervention. Mehta's broader question captured that uncertainty: "Do you think someone is going to come off the sidelines and build a new general search engine in light of what we are seeing?" he asked, according to Reuters. The exchange hints at how Mehta may be approaching the case. While the DOJ has focused on Google's multibillion-dollar default search deals -- particularly with Apple (AAPL) -- the judge appears to be looking at whether the concept of a "search market" still applies in an AI-driven world. David Dahlquist, a DOJ attorney, told Mehta that search is far from obsolete. He said the government's proposed remedies aim to stop Google from leveraging its dominance to stifle AI-based rivals before they get a foothold. Prosecutors maintain that Google's position stems from entrenched defaults, not superior products -- and that AI tools still rely on Google infrastructure and aren't full substitutes for traditional search. Any uncertainty could benefit Google. The very technology threatening its business model -- AI -- may now bolster its legal defense. In this penalty phase of the trial, Google has argued that regulators' proposed remedies are overreaching, disproportionate, and unnecessary, partly because the market is already shifting under its feet. If Mehta finds that AI platforms are emerging as viable alternatives to traditional search, he could conclude that competition is arriving on its own -- no court order required. That would undercut the government's core claim: that without intervention, Google's grip on the market is too entrenched for any rival to compete. But Mehta's question also points to a broader consideration: whether the market Google has allegedly monopolized still exists in the same form today, and whether remedies designed for that era still make sense in 2025. More pointedly: Is the market Google allegedly controls already being redefined by forces beyond the court's reach? That legal ambiguity may be central to the final outcome. If generative AI counts as search, the court may see Google as already under pressure from entrants. If it doesn't, the government's argument -- that search remains a closed market dominated by one firm -- gains strength. Mehta's decision is expected in August. If he rules in favor of the government, Google has indicated plans to appeal.

Google makes case for keeping Chrome browser

Google on Friday urged a US judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser to weaken its dominance in online search. Rival attorneys made their final arguments before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering "remedies" to impose after making a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search. US government attorneys have called on Mehta to order Google divest itself of Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the internet. They also want Google barred from agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, which was the focus of the suit against the Silicon Valley internet giant. Three weeks of testimony ended early in May, with Friday devoted to rival sides arguing points of law and making their arguments before Mehta in a courtroom in Washington. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, told Mehta that there was no evidence presented showing people would have opted for a different search engine if no exclusivity deals had been in place. Schmidtlein noted that Verizon installed Chrome on smartphones even though the US telecom titan owned Yahoo! search engine and was not bound by a contract with Google. Of the 100 or so witnesses heard at trial, not one said "if I had more flexibility, I would have installed Bing" internet search browser from Microsoft, the Google attorney told the judge. Department of Justice attorney David Dahlquist countered that Apple, which was paid billions of dollars to make Chrome the default browser on iPhones, "repeatedly asked for more flexibility" but was denied by Google. Google contends that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spin-off of Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system. The potential of Chrome being hobbled or spun off comes as rivals such as Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence to work fetching information from the internet in response to user queries. The online search antitrust suit was filed against Google some five years ago, before ChatGPT made its debut, triggering AI fervor. Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be among the leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings.

Google makes case for keeping Chrome browser

Washington (AFP) - Google on Friday urged a US judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser to weaken its dominance in online search. Rival attorneys made their final arguments before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering "remedies" to impose after making a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search. US government attorneys have called on Mehta to order Google divest itself of Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the internet. They also want Google barred from agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, which was the focus of the suit against the Silicon Valley internet giant. Three weeks of testimony ended early in May, with Friday devoted to rival sides arguing points of law and making their arguments before Mehta in a courtroom in Washington. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, told Mehta that there was no evidence presented showing people would have opted for a different search engine if no exclusivity deals had been in place. Schmidtlein noted that Verizon installed Chrome on smartphones even though the US telecom titan owned Yahoo! search engine and was not bound by a contract with Google. Of the 100 or so witnesses heard at trial, not one said "if I had more flexibility, I would have installed Bing" internet search browser from Microsoft, the Google attorney told the judge. Department of Justice attorney David Dahlquist countered that Apple, which was paid billions of dollars to make Chrome the default browser on iPhones, "repeatedly asked for more flexibility" but was denied by Google. Google contends that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system. The potential of Chrome being hobbled or spun off comes as rivals such as Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence to work fetching information from the internet in response to user queries. The online search antitrust suit was filed against Google some five years ago, before ChatGPT made its debut, triggering AI fervor. Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be among the leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings.

Google will face off with the DOJ in the final day of a historic antitrust trial

After today's closing arguments, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta plans to issue a decision before Labor Day. Google will return to federal court Friday to fend off the U.S. Justice Department's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it's navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence that could undercut its power. The legal and technological threats facing Google are among the key issues that will be dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared as an illegal monopoly by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers will attempt to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google lawyers are expected to assert only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. "Over weeks of testimony, we heard from a series of well-funded companies eager to gain access to Google's technology so they don't have to innovate themselves," Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post earlier this month. "What we didn't hear was how DOJ's extreme proposals would benefit consumers." After the day-long closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine into an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines "does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship" of their personal information. The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department's proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry. Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realize their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. "Developers will be overcome by uncertainty" if Google is torn apart, the group argues. Buy Y Combinator, an incubator that has helped create hundreds of startups collectively worth about $800 billion filed documents pushing for the dramatic overhaul of Google, whose immense power has discouraged venture capitalists from investing in areas that are considered to be part of the company's "kill zone." Startups "also need to be able to get their products into the hands of users, free from restrictive dealing and self-preferencing that locks up important distribution channels. As things stand, Google has locked up the most critical distribution channels, freezing the general search and search text advertising markets into static competition for more than a decade," Y Combinator told Mehta.

Google, Justice Department face off in climactic showdown in search monopoly case

Google will return to federal court Friday to fend off the U.S. Justice Department's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it's navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence that could undercut its power. The legal and technological threats facing Google are among the key issues that will be dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared as an illegal monopoly by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers will attempt to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google lawyers are expected to assert only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. "Over weeks of testimony, we heard from a series of well-funded companies eager to gain access to Google's technology so they don't have to innovate themselves," Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post earlier this month. "What we didn't hear was how DOJ's extreme proposals would benefit consumers." After the day-long closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine i nto an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines "does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship" of their personal information. The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department's proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry. Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realize their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. "Developers will be overcome by uncertainty" if Google is torn apart, the group argues. Buy Y Combinator, an incubator that has helped create hundreds of startups collectively worth about $800 billion filed documents pushing for the dramatic overhaul of Google, whose immense power has discouraged venture capitalists from investing in areas that are considered to be part of the company's "kill zone." Startups "also need to be able to get their products into the hands of users, free from restrictive dealing and self-preferencing that locks up important distribution channels. As things stand, Google has locked up the most critical distribution channels, freezing the general search and search text advertising markets into static competition for more than a decade," Y Combinator told Mehta.

Google, Justice Department face off in climactic showdown in search monopoly case

Google will return to federal court Friday to fend off the U.S. Justice Department's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it's navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence that could undercut its power Google will return to federal court Friday to fend off the U.S. Justice Department's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it's navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence that could undercut its power. The legal and technological threats facing Google are among the key issues that will be dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared as an illegal monopoly by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers will attempt to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google lawyers are expected to assert only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. "Over weeks of testimony, we heard from a series of well-funded companies eager to gain access to Google's technology so they don't have to innovate themselves," Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post earlier this month. "What we didn't hear was how DOJ's extreme proposals would benefit consumers." After the day-long closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine i nto an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines "does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship" of their personal information. The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department's proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry. Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realize their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. "Developers will be overcome by uncertainty" if Google is torn apart, the group argues. Buy Y Combinator, an incubator that has helped create hundreds of startups collectively worth about $800 billion filed documents pushing for the dramatic overhaul of Google, whose immense power has discouraged venture capitalists from investing in areas that are considered to be part of the company's "kill zone." Startups "also need to be able to get their products into the hands of users, free from restrictive dealing and self-preferencing that locks up important distribution channels. As things stand, Google has locked up the most critical distribution channels, freezing the general search and search text advertising markets into static competition for more than a decade," Y Combinator told Mehta.

AI looms large as judge weighs penalties in Google search case

A federal judge on Friday grappled with the way artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the internet, as he weighed what penalties Google will ultimately face for illegally monopolizing search. Google and the Department of Justice (DOJ) presented their closing arguments following a three-week hearing to determine the proper remedies, after the tech giant was found to have improperly maintained its search monopoly through a series of exclusive agreements. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta peppered both sides with questions over eight hours Friday, focusing heavily on what AI means for Google and the search market. The DOJ has argued that Google's dominance over search gives it a leg up in the AI race. It has pushed for more forward-looking remedies, including forcing the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google has contested this assertion, underscoring the competition it faces in the AI space from the likes of ChatGPT, Grok and DeepSeek. It has suggested a much more limited set of remedies that would bar the company from entering into the exclusive agreements the court deemed anticompetitive. Mehta appeared skeptical of Google's proposed remedies, noting that they "could have all closed up shop" if he simply needed to issue an injunction blocking the company's exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and browsers. However, the judge didn't seem entirely convinced by the DOJ's wide-reaching proposal either, pushing the government to explain how AI fits into the search case. David Dahlquist, the government's lead attorney, dismissed Google's proposal Friday as "milquetoast remedies that it knows will maintain the status quo." He argued the remedies can go beyond the confines of the search market identified in the case to prevent Google from taking advantage of its existing market power, underscoring the way generative AI could drive more users to its search engine. "We do not have to have complete blinders as to what's going on in the rest of the world and we should not," Dahlquist said. Google seemed keen to get ahead of these concerns, noting that as part of its own proposal, it would not enter into exclusive agreements with its AI chatbot Gemini. "Gen AI technology is influencing how search looks today," John Schmidtlein, Google's lead attorney, said Friday. "To the extent the court was concerned that somehow gen AI products could in the future find themselves in the relevant market ... we're addressing it." AI was central to Google CEO Sundar Pichai's testimony last month, in which he detailed the push to make Google an "AI-first company." "I'm pleased with the progress [on AI], but we have a big gap between us and the market leader in this space," he said at the time, referring to OpenAI, which recently beat out Google for a deal with Apple. Since Pichai's appearance on the stand, Google has rolled out a new feature further integrating AI into its search engine. The new AI Mode tab gives users a chatbot-like experience within Google Search. Mehta separately pressed the two sides Friday on the DOJ's data-sharing and syndication proposals. The government has pushed for Google to share search data and syndication to boost potential competitors. When questioned by the judge, the DOJ acknowledged that AI rivals, like OpenAI and Perplexity, could also receive access to this data. Google has resisted almost any form of data-sharing, arguing it exposes the company's intellectual property and poses numerous privacy problems. But Schmidtlein gave some credence to the idea of a "tailored" approach to syndication Friday. The search giant is struggling to maintain hold of its tech empire in the face of dual antitrust cases. Just days before Google was set to appear in court for the remedies hearing, a separate judge ruled the company had an illegal monopoly over advertising technology. Google ultimately plans to appeal the decisions in both cases, but it has to wrap up remedies first. Mehta has previously said he hopes to rule by August, while the remedies trial in the ad tech case is set for September.

Google, Justice Department Face off in Climactic Showdown in Search Monopoly Case

Google will return to federal court Friday to fend off the U.S. Justice Department's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it's navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence that could undercut its power. The legal and technological threats facing Google are among the key issues that will be dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared as an illegal monopoly by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers will attempt to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google lawyers are expected to assert only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. "Over weeks of testimony, we heard from a series of well-funded companies eager to gain access to Google's technology so they don't have to innovate themselves," Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post earlier this month. "What we didn't hear was how DOJ's extreme proposals would benefit consumers." After the day-long closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine i nto an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines "does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship" of their personal information. The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department's proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry. Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realize their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. "Developers will be overcome by uncertainty" if Google is torn apart, the group argues. Buy Y Combinator, an incubator that has helped create hundreds of startups collectively worth about $800 billion filed documents pushing for the dramatic overhaul of Google, whose immense power has discouraged venture capitalists from investing in areas that are considered to be part of the company's "kill zone." Startups "also need to be able to get their products into the hands of users, free from restrictive dealing and self-preferencing that locks up important distribution channels. As things stand, Google has locked up the most critical distribution channels, freezing the general search and search text advertising markets into static competition for more than a decade," Y Combinator told Mehta. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Google and DOJ to Make Final Push in US Search Antitrust Case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Alphabet's Google and U.S. antitrust enforcers will make their final arguments on whether the tech giant should be forced to sell its Chrome browser or adopt other measures to restore competition in online search, as the blockbuster antitrust trial concludes on Friday. The U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states are pressing to make Google not only sell Chrome, but also share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers and wireless carriers that set Google as the default search engine on new devices. The proposals aim to restore competition after a judge found last year that Google illegally dominates the online search and related advertising markets. Artificial intelligence companies could get a boost after already rattling Google's status as the go-to tool to find information online. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is overseeing the trial, which began in April. He has said he aims to rule on the proposals by August. If the judge does require Google to sell off Chrome, OpenAI would be interested in buying it, Nick Turley, OpenAI's product head for ChatGPT, said at the trial. OpenAI would also benefit from access to Google's search data, which would help it make responses to user inquiries more accurate and up to date, Turley said. Google says the proposals go far beyond what is legally justified by the court's ruling, and would give away its technology to competitors. The company has already begun loosening agreements with smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics to allow them to load rival search and AI products. The DOJ wants the judge to go farther, banning Google from making lucrative payments in exchange for installation of its search app. (Reporting by Jody Godoy in Washington; Editing by Richard Chang)

Google, DOJ to Make Final Push in US Search Antitrust Case

The company has already begun loosening agreements with smartphone makers Alphabet's Google and US antitrust enforcers will make their final arguments on whether the tech giant should be forced to sell its Chrome browser or adopt other measures to restore competition in online search, as the blockbuster antitrust trial concludes on Friday. The US Department of Justice and a coalition of states are pressing to make Google not only sell Chrome, but also share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers and wireless carriers that set Google as the default search engine on new devices. The proposals aim to restore competition after a judge found last year that Google illegally dominates the online search and related advertising markets. Artificial Intelligence (AI) companies could get a boost after already rattling Google's status as the go-to tool to find information online. US District Judge Amit Mehta is overseeing the trial, which began in April. He has said he aims to rule on the proposals by August. If the judge does require Google to sell off Chrome, OpenAI would be interested in buying it, Nick Turley, OpenAI's product head for ChatGPT, said at the trial. OpenAI would also benefit from access to Google's search data, which would help it make responses to user inquiries more accurate and up to date, Turley said. Google says the proposals go far beyond what is legally justified by the court's ruling, and would give away its technology to competitors. The company has already begun loosening agreements with smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics to allow them to load rival search and AI products. The DOJ wants the judge to go farther, banning Google from making lucrative payments in exchange for installation of its search app. © Thomson Reuters 2025

Google Search judge zeroes in on AI power in trial resolution

A US court is deciding on remedies for Google's search monopoly. The judge is examining Google's influence in artificial intelligence. The Justice Department wants restrictions on Google's AI practices. They propose measures to boost competition in search and AI. Google opposes these remedies, citing innovation. The court is weighing long-term solutions for the market.The federal judge who will decide how to limit Google's monopoly in search is looking closely at its power in a more nascent market: artificial intelligence. On Friday in US District Court in Washington, Alphabet Inc.'s Google and the Justice Department began answering Judge Amit Mehta's final questions in the government's monopoly case against the search giant. It will be up to Mehta to decide whether to break up the company and reshape the internet or impose more limited penalties. Mehta's first questions to the government focused on whether curbing Google's position in generative AI was a fitting way to address the company's dominance in search. "Does the government believe that there is a market for a new search engine to emerge as we think of it today?" he asked. "Do you think somebody is going to come off the sidelines and build a new general search engine in light of what we are now seeing happen in the AI space?" "The short answer is yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist responded. "We do believe that these remedies that will be proposed will allow that opportunity to occur. The reason we are so focused on gen AI, and the reason you heard a lot of evidence about it, is because that is the new search access point." The questions focused on the Justice Department's proposal for forward-looking, long-term measures to resolve Google's conduct in the market, which Mehta ruled last year was an illegal monopoly of the online search market. Antitrust regulators have argued that Google's dominance in traditional search could extend to generative AI, which is becoming a key gateway for how users access information online. Existential threat AI chatbots are already seen as an existential threat to traditional search engines, as they can address users' questions directly with AI-drafted responses -- replacing the need to present people with a long list of search results pointing across the web. The government wants the judge to ban Google from paying device and browser makers to position its search engine as the default option -- a bar that would also apply to Google's artificial intelligence products, including its flagship AI model, Gemini. The US has also asked Mehta to order Google to sell its popular Chrome web browser and share some of the data it collects to create its search results in order for competitors to develop their own search engines. Google has argued that the government's proposals are too extreme, saying they would hurt American consumers and the economy, as well as weaken US technological leadership. Google argues that it is the market leader in search because of more than 20 years of innovation. It says people use its service because it is the best. The company's lead lawyer John Schmidtlein asserted on Friday that the court should focus on addressing the specific conduct found to be illegal, rather than imposing extensive remedies -- including on Google's generative AI products -- that he said could fundamentally restructure the market. But Mehta also appeared skeptical of the tech giant's argument for more limited remedies, indicating he is seriously considering including AI-related measures in his decision. "It seems to me that to simply say, 'look, just open up the avenues of distribution,' without providing any further remedies that are forward-looking and that would allow competitors to actually be rivals here, sells the remedy portion of this short," Mehta commented. Schmidtlein countered that gen AI products are not in the relevant market for search. "There is no evidence that gen AI products have been harmed by any of the conduct issue in this case," he said. "They couldn't have been, they weren't around, right?" Perplexity, OpenAI As the trial unfolded in April and May, some representatives from AI companies told the court they are already being stymied by Google. Perplexity's Dmitry Shevelenko testified that Google's contract with Lenovo Group Ltd.'s Motorola blocked the smartphone maker from setting Perplexity as the default assistant on its new devices. Motorola "can't get out of their Google obligations and so they are unable to change the default assistant on the device," the Perplexity executive said. Representatives of two prominent AI startups -- OpenAI and Perplexity AI -- also testified their companies would be interested in buying Chrome if Google were forced to divest it. Much of the discussion in the first part of the day focused on what data, and how much of it Google would be forced to syndicate to rivals so they can build their own search engines. Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai testified in April that the Justice Department's proposal to share search data with rivals constituted a "de facto" divestiture of the company's search engine. On Friday, Mehta told government lawyer Dahlquist that he is "not looking to kneecap Google" but to instead bolster potential competitors. "We are trying to kickstart competitors, we are not trying to put them on equal footing on day one." "We agree with that," Dahlquist said. "Syndication is not envisioned as a long term remedy, it is a short term bridge to independence." Schmidtlein, the Google lawyer, disagreed, telling Mehta that the government seeks to put immediately put competitors on par with Google's "ingenuity."

Google makes case for keeping Chrome browser

Google has urged a US judge to reject calls for spinning off its Chrome browser, arguing it would harm innovation and users. The Justice Department sought remedies to counter Google's dominance in search, including banning default deals and possibly divesting Chrome, amid rising AI competition from ChatGPT and others.Google on Friday urged a US judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser to weaken its dominance in online search. Rival attorneys made their final arguments before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering imposing "remedies" after a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search. US government attorneys have called on Mehta to order Google to divest itself of Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the internet. They also want Google barred from agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, which was the focus of the suit against the Silicon Valley internet giant. Three weeks of testimony ended early in May, with Friday devoted to rival sides parsing points of law and making their arguments before Mehta in a courtroom in Washington. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, told Mehta that there was no evidence presented showing people would have opted for a different search engine without the exclusivity deals in place. Schmidtlein noted that Verizon installed Chrome on smartphones even though the US telecom titan owned Yahoo! search engine and was not bound by a contract with Google. Of the 100 or so witnesses heard at trial, not one said "if I had more flexibility, I would have installed Bing" search engine from Microsoft, the Google attorney told the judge. 'More flexibility' Department of Justice (DoJ) attorney David Dahlquist countered that Apple, which was paid billions of dollars to make Chrome the default browser on iPhones, "repeatedly asked for more flexibility" but was denied by Google. Google contends that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system. "Forcing the sale of Chrome or banning default agreements wouldn't foster competition," said Cato Institute senior fellow in technology policy Jennifer Huddleston. "It would hobble innovation, hurt smaller players, and leave users with worse products." Google attorney Schmidtlein noted that more than 80 percent of Chrome users are outside the United States, meaning divestiture would have global ramifications. "Any divested Chrome would be a shadow of the current Chrome," he contended. "And once we are in that world, I don't see how you can say anybody is better off." The potential of Chrome being weakened or spun off comes as rivals such as Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence (AI) to work fetching information from the internet in response to user queries. The online search antitrust suit was filed against Google some five years ago, before ChatGPT made its debut, triggering AI fervour. Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be a leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings. Kneecap Google? Testimony at trial included Apple vice president of services Eddy Cue revealing that Google's search traffic on Apple devices declined in April for the first time in over two decades. Cue testified that Google was losing ground to AI alternatives like ChatGPT and Perplexity. Mehta pressed rival attorneys regarding the potential for Google to share data as proposed by the DoJ in its recommended remedies. "We're not looking to kneecap Google," DoJ attorney Adam Severt told the judge. "But, we are looking to make sure someone can compete with Google." Schmidtlein contended that data Google is being asked to share contains more than just information about people's online searches, saying it would be tantamount to handing over the fruit of investments made over the course of decades. "There are countless algorithms that Google engineers have invented that have nothing to do with click and query data," Schmidtlein said. "Their remedy says we want to be on par with all of your ingenuity, and, respectfully your honour, that is not proportional to the conduct of this case."

Google, Justice Department face off in climactic showdown in search monopoly case

Google lawyers are expected to assert only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier.Google will return to federal court Friday to fend off the US Justice Department's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it's navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence that could undercut its power. The legal and technological threats facing Google are among the key issues that will be dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared as an illegal monopoly by US District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers will attempt to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google lawyers are expected to assert only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. "Over weeks of testimony, we heard from a series of well-funded companies eager to gain access to Google's technology so they don't have to innovate themselves," Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post earlier this month. "What we didn't hear was how DOJ's extreme proposals would benefit consumers." After the day-long closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labour Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at USD 2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine into an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than USD 20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines "does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship" of their personal information. The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department's proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry. Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realize their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. "Developers will be overcome by uncertainty" if Google is torn apart, the group argues. Buy Y Combinator, an incubator that has helped create hundreds of startups collectively worth about USD 800 billion filed documents pushing for the dramatic overhaul of Google, whose immense power has discouraged venture capitalists from investing in areas that are considered to be part of the company's "kill zone." Startups "also need to be able to get their products into the hands of users, free from restrictive dealing and self-preferencing that locks up important distribution channels. As things stand, Google has locked up the most critical distribution channels, freezing the general search and search text advertising markets into static competition for more than a decade," Y Combinator told Mehta.

Google and DOJ to make final push in US search antitrust case

As the antitrust trial concludes, Google and U.S. enforcers present final arguments on remedies for Google's illegal search dominance. Proposals include forcing Google to sell Chrome, share search data, and cease payments to Apple and other device makers. OpenAI has expressed interest in buying Chrome, while Google argues the proposals are excessive.Alphabet's Google and U.S. antitrust enforcers will make their final arguments on whether the tech giant should be forced to sell its Chrome browser or adopt other measures to restore competition in online search, as the blockbuster antitrust trial concludes on Friday. The U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states are pressing to make Google not only sell Chrome, but also share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers and wireless carriers that set Google as the default search engine on new devices. The proposals aim to restore competition after a judge found last year that Google illegally dominates the online search and related advertising markets. Artificial intelligence companies could get a boost after already rattling Google's status as the go-to tool to find information online. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is overseeing the trial, which began in April. He has said he aims to rule on the proposals by August. If the judge does require Google to sell off Chrome, OpenAI would be interested in buying it, Nick Turley, OpenAI's product head for ChatGPT, said at the trial. OpenAI would also benefit from access to Google's search data, which would help it make responses to user inquiries more accurate and up to date, Turley said. Google says the proposals go far beyond what is legally justified by the court's ruling, and would give away its technology to competitors. The company has already begun loosening agreements with smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics to allow them to load rival search and AI products. The DOJ wants the judge to go farther, banning Google from making lucrative payments in exchange for installation of its search app. (Reporting by Jody Godoy in Washington; Editing by Richard Chang)

Google's Monopoly Case Takes A Turn As Judge Considers Lighter Remedies Amid Rising Competition From AI Rivals Like OpenAI And Perplexity - Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG), Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL)

On Friday, a federal judge signaled he may scale back the Justice Department's proposed remedies for Alphabet Inc.'s GOOG GOOGL Google's alleged search monopoly, citing the fast-changing role of artificial intelligence in online search. What Happened: U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, presiding over the high-profile antitrust case, expressed skepticism about imposing a 10-year oversight plan that would force Google to share search data and stop paying Apple Inc. AAPL and others to be the default search engine, reported Reuters. "Ten years may seem like a short period, but in this space, a lot can change in weeks," Mehta said, referring to ChatGPT-maker OpenAI's decision to buy Jony Ive's startup to build AI devices. See Also: Sundar Pichai Reveals Google-Parent Once Super Intensely Debated About Buying Netflix: 'In A World Of Butterfly Effects...' He added that future competition may not come from traditional search rivals like Microsoft Corp.'s MSFT Bing or DuckDuckGo, but from AI companies offering fundamentally different user experiences. "If anything, it's going to be one of these AI companies that can do more than just search. And Why? Because maybe people don't want 10 blue links anymore," Mehta said. Google's lawyer John Schmidtlein pushed back on the idea of giving AI rivals access to Google's proprietary data, arguing, "Coming to Google and asking Google for a handout when they are the market leader seems completely disproportionate to what this case is about." Previously, Nick Turley, OpenAI's product head for ChatGPT, testified that the AI startup would be open to acquiring Chrome if Google were ever compelled to sell it. Subscribe to the Benzinga Tech Trends newsletter to get all the latest tech developments delivered to your inbox. Why It's Important: Earlier this month, Apple executive Eddy Cue testified that Safari had seen a drop in search volumes for the first time in over 20 years, attributing the decline to the growing use of AI-powered searches. Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai pushed back on this in an interview with The Verge published this week, asserting that the data does not indicate a decline in overall activity. "We've been very clear. We're seeing overall query growth in search," he said. During his testimony, Cue also revealed that Apple is actively considering integrating an AI-driven search engine into Safari, evaluating potential partnerships with OpenAI, Anthropic and Perplexity AI. Meanwhile, Google introduced a new "AI mode" in its Search and Chrome browser during its developer conference. Now available to all U.S. users, the feature offers a conversational, Q&A-style interface similar to ChatGPT, replacing the traditional list of search result links. Price Action: Alphabet Inc.'s Class A shares dipped 0.32% in after-hours trading, with Class C shares also down 0.32%, based on Benzinga Pro data. According to Benzinga Edge Stock Rankings, Alphabet holds a growth score of 88.54%. Click here to compare it with other companies like Apple. Check out more of Benzinga's Consumer Tech coverage by following this link. Read Next: Mark Zuckerberg Warns Of 'Serious Disadvantage' As China's Data-Center Blitz Could Let DeepSeek Leapfrog US AI Labs Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors. Photo courtesy: JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock.com AAPLApple Inc$200.290.17%Stock Score Locked: Want to See it? Benzinga Rankings give you vital metrics on any stock - anytime. Reveal Full ScoreEdge RankingsMomentum40.93Growth32.97Quality77.54Value8.78Price TrendShortMediumLongOverviewGOOGAlphabet Inc$172.30-0.38%GOOGLAlphabet Inc$171.19-0.39%MSFTMicrosoft Corp$459.690.22%Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

Justice Department Says Remedies in Google Antitrust Case Should Consider AI Tools | PYMNTS.com

Artificial intelligence (AI) and its role in the future of search was reportedly spotlighted Friday (May 30) during closing arguments over remedies in the Justice Department's antitrust case against Google. The government argued that the court's remedies for Google's dominance in search should include curbs on the company's ability to promote its AI product, Gemini, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported Friday. "The reason we are so focused on GenAI is because that is the new search access point," Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist said, according to the report. Earlier court testimony showed that Google is paying manufacturers to pre-install Gemini on their devices, and the Justice Department has said that this is the company's attempt to monopolize a new form of search and should be prohibited, per the report. The Department also wants Google to be required to share its search data with AI companies because that would enable those companies to compete more effectively with Gemini, according to the report. Judge Amit Mehta questioned that proposal Friday, saying, per the report: "It seems to me you want to bring in this other technology into this definition of a general search engine market that I'm not sure quite fits." Reuters reported Friday that Google attorney John Schmidtlein said at the hearing that Google no longer enters into exclusive agreements with device manufacturers, so those companies are free to load any search and AI apps on their new products. Addressing the Justice Department's argument that Google should be required to share its search data with AI companies, Schmidtlein said that would be inappropriate when a company like OpenAI is already a leader in its field, according to the report. "Coming to Google and asking Google for a handout when they are the market leader seems completely disproportionate to what this case is about," Schmidtlein said, per the report. The remedies in this antitrust case could include forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser, stop paying Apple to be its default search engine and sharing data with competitors. Those are among the remedies the Justice Department has argued are necessary to improve competition in online search.

Judge in Google antitrust trial presses DOJ on AI's role in future...

The judge overseeing the landmark antitrust case against Google pressed Justice Department lawyers on whether potential search engine rivals will have room to grow amid the rise of artificial intelligence - a critical question as he considers the government's push to break up its illegal monopoly. US District Judge Amit Mehta -- who labeled Google a "monopolist" in a separate trial that wrapped up last year -- dug into the issue during closing arguments of the remedy phase in a Washington court on Friday. "Do you think someone is going to come off the sidelines and build a new general search engine in light of what we are seeing?" Mehta asked, referring to the rise of AI-powered search tools offered by Google and others. DOJ lawyer David Dahlquist described so-called generative AI as the "gateway to search," while hammering home the agency's argument that any court-ordered remedies must address new and future technology, not just Google's past indiscretions. "The reason we are so focused on Gen AI is because that is the new search access point," Dahlquist said. The DOJ has asked Mehta to force Google to sell off its Chrome web browser and ensure it cannot use its AI tools to further entrench its illegal monopoly over the industry - among other proposed fixes. Mehta has said he will make a final decision by August. Aside from a divestment of Chrome and AI-focused remedies, the DOJ has argued that Google should no longer be allowed to pay companies like Apple to ensure its search engine is set as the default option on most smartphones. The feds also want to force Google to share search data with rivals. Their proposal also suggests requiring Google to sell off its Android operating system if initial remedies prove ineffective. Google has pushed back, arguing the DOJ's proposals go far beyond the judge's initial ruling and would "break these platforms." The company has gone as far as to suggest that a forced breakup would jeopardize US national security and allow China to beat the US in the race to build advanced AI. Google also argued that it faces fierce competition from other AI-powered platforms, such as those offered by Sam Altman's OpenAI. "DOJ's case ignores how intense competition has transformed the industry. Well-funded services like ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek, Perplexity and MetaAI are rapidly gaining users and distribution, and adding innovations at a breakneck pace," Google vice president of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a blog post. During closing arguments, Google attorney John Schmidtlein said the company has already addressed AI-related search concerns by no longer pursuing exclusivity deals with wireless carriers and smartphone makers, including Samsung. Earlier in the remedy trial, an OpenAI executive said that the company would be interested in acquiring Chrome if it were up for sale. The executive also acknowledged that OpenAI would benefit if it had access to Google search data.

Google makes case for keeping Chrome browser

Washington, U.S. -- Google on Friday urged a U.S. judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser to weaken its dominance in online search. Rival attorneys made their final arguments before U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering "remedies" to impose after making a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search. U.S. government attorneys have called on Mehta to order Google divest itself of Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the internet. They also want Google barred from agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, which was the focus of the suit against the Silicon Valley internet giant. Three weeks of testimony ended early in May, with Friday devoted to rival sides arguing points of law and making their arguments before Mehta in a courtroom in Washington. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, told Mehta that there was no evidence presented showing people would have opted for a different search engine if no exclusivity deals had been in place. Schmidtlein noted that Verizon installed Chrome on smartphones even though the U.S. telecom titan owned Yahoo! search engine and was not bound by a contract with Google. Of the 100 or so witnesses heard at trial, not one said "if I had more flexibility, I would have installed Bing" internet search browser from Microsoft, the Google attorney told the judge. Department of Justice attorney David Dahlquist countered that Apple, which was paid billions of dollars to make Chrome the default browser on iPhones, "repeatedly asked for more flexibility" but was denied by Google. Google contends that the U.S. has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system. The potential of Chrome being hobbled or spun off comes as rivals such as Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence to work fetching information from the internet in response to user queries. The online search antitrust suit was filed against Google some five years ago, before ChatGPT made its debut, triggering AI fervor. Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be among the leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings.

Google, U.S. Justice Department face off in climactic showdown in search monopoly case

Google will return to federal court Friday to fend off the U.S. Justice Department's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it's navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence that could undercut its power. The legal and technological threats facing Google are among the key issues that will be dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared as an illegal monopoly by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers will attempt to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google lawyers are expected to assert only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. "Over weeks of testimony, we heard from a series of well-funded companies eager to gain access to Google's technology so they don't have to innovate themselves," Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post earlier this month. "What we didn't hear was how DOJ's extreme proposals would benefit consumers." After the day-long closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine i nto an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines "does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship" of their personal information. The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department's proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry. Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realize their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. "Developers will be overcome by uncertainty" if Google is torn apart, the group argues. Buy Y Combinator, an incubator that has helped create hundreds of startups collectively worth about $800 billion filed documents pushing for the dramatic overhaul of Google, whose immense power has discouraged venture capitalists from investing in areas that are considered to be part of the company's "kill zone." Startups "also need to be able to get their products into the hands of users, free from restrictive dealing and self-preferencing that locks up important distribution channels. As things stand, Google has locked up the most critical distribution channels, freezing the general search and search text advertising markets into static competition for more than a decade," Y Combinator told Mehta.

Judge in Google case questions future of search amid rise of AI

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A judge asked the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday how much room there would be for new search engines to emerge given the rise of artificial intelligence, as antitrust enforcers press for Alphabet's Google to take dramatic measures to restore competition in online search. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is overseeing the trial over proposals to remedy Google's search monopoly. If he approves the DOJ proposals, artificial intelligence companies could get a boost after already rattling Google's status as the go-to tool to find information online. Mehta asked DOJ attorney David Dahlquist during closing arguments in Washington whether AI should be considered a way to access search, or as a kind of competing technology. "Do you think someone is going to come off the sidelines and build a new general search engine in light of what we are seeing?" Mehta asked. Dahlquist replied that search isn't going away, and that the DOJ's proposed remedies are designed to keep Google from blocking AI-based competitors. A witness from OpenAI testified in the case that the ChatGPT creator is years away from its goal of being able to use its own search technology to answer 80% of queries. The DOJ and a coalition of states are pressing to make Google sell its Chrome browser, share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers and wireless carriers that set Google as the default search engine on new devices. Dahlquist said that the remedies are designed to pry open markets for online search engines and related advertising as well as restore competition that Google's conduct has "fundamentally broken." The trial on the proposals began in April. Mehta has said he aims to rule on the proposals by August. If the judge does require Google to sell off Chrome, OpenAI would be interested in buying it, Nick Turley, OpenAI's product head for ChatGPT, said at the trial. OpenAI would also benefit from access to Google's search data, which would help it make responses to user inquiries more accurate and up to date, Turley said. Google says the proposals go far beyond what is legally justified by the court's ruling, and would give away its technology to competitors. The company has already begun loosening agreements with smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics to allow them to load rival search and AI products. The DOJ wants the judge to go farther, banning Google from making lucrative payments in exchange for installation of its search app. (Reporting by Jody Godoy in Washington; Editing by Richard Chang and Mark Porter)

Google judge mulls softer remedies in US search antitrust case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A federal judge in Washington suggested on Friday he is considering making Alphabet's Google take less aggressive measures to restore competition in online search than the 10-year regime proposed by antitrust enforcers. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard closing arguments on Friday at a trial on proposals to address Google's illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. "Ten years may seem like a short period, but in this space, a lot can change in weeks," he said, citing recent developments such as ChatGPT maker OpenAI buying a device startup. The DOJ and a coalition of states want Google to share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers to be the default search engine on new devices. At the hearing, the judge floated the possibility of limited data sharing and ending the payments only if other measures do not increase competition. He also grappled with the rise of artificial intelligence products that could replace traditional search engines. An alternate default search engine in Apple's Safari browser is unlikely to come from existing rival search engines like DuckDuckGo or Bing, the judge said. "If anything it's going to be one of these AI companies that can do more than just search. And why? Because maybe people don't want 10 blue links anymore," he said, referring to earlier iterations of Google's search engine. The case has already rattled Google's share price by exposing Apple's plans to offer AI-based search options. The trial began in April and Mehta has said he aims to rule by August. AI "RIVALS"? Antitrust enforcers are concerned about how Google's search monopoly gives it an advantage in AI products like Gemini and vice versa. Nick Turley, OpenAI's product head for ChatGPT, testified that the ChatGPT creator is years away from its goal of being able to use its own search technology to answer 80% of queries and that having access to Google search data would help it focus on improving ChatGPT. Turley also said OpenAI would be interested in buying Chrome if Google is forced to sell it. But Mehta questioned whether companies like OpenAI or Perplexity should be considered Google competitors who would be given access to any data Google is required to share, given that the case focused on search engine competitors. "It seems to me you now want to kind of bring this other technology into the definition of general search engine markets that I am not sure quite fits," the judge said to DOJ attorney Adam Severt. Severt replied that while the first part of the case focused on the past, the remedies must be forward-looking. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, said at the hearing that while generative AI is influencing how search looks, Google has addressed any concerns about competition in AI by no longer entering exclusive agreements with wireless carriers and smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics, leaving them free to load rival search and AI apps on new devices. Schmidtlein argued it would be inappropriate to give successful AI companies like OpenAI technology that Google has spent 20 years perfecting. "Coming to Google and asking Google for a handout when they are the market leader seems completely disproportionate to what this case is about," he said. (Reporting by Jody Godoy in Washington; Editing by Richard Chang, Mark Porter and Chizu Nomiyama)