Google's Antitrust Trial Shifts Focus to AI, Highlighting Tech Giant's Data Advantage

Why Google's search engine trial is about AI

When the U.S. Department of Justice originally brought -- and then won -- its case against Google, arguing that the tech behemoth monopolized the search engine market, the focus was on, well ... search. Back then, in 2020, the government's antitrust complaint against Google had few mentions of artificial intelligence or AI chatbots. But nearly five years later, as the remedy phase of the trial enters its second week of testimony, the focus has shifted to AI, underscoring just how quickly this emerging technology has expanded. In the past few days, before a federal judge who will assess penalties against Google, the DOJ has argued that the company 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. In his opening statements last Monday, David Dahlquist, the acting deputy director of the DOJ's antitrust civil litigation division, argued that the court should consider remedies that could nip a potential Google AI monopoly in the bud. "This court's remedy should be forward-looking and not ignore what is on the horizon," he said. Dahlquist argued that Google has created a system in which its control of search helps improve its AI products, sending more users back to Google search -- creating a cycle that maintains the tech company's dominance and blocks competitors out of both marketplaces. The integration of search and Gemini, the company's AI chatbot -- which the DOJ sees as powerful fuel for this cycle -- is a big focus of the government's proposed remedies. The DOJ is arguing that to be most effective, those remedies must address all ways users access Google search, so any penalties approved by the court that don't include Gemini (or other Google AI products now or in the future) would undermine their broader efforts. AI and search are connected like this: Search engine indices are essentially giant databases of pages and information on the web. Google has its own such index, which contains hundreds of billions of webpages and is over 100,000,000 gigabytes, according to court documents. This is the data Google's search engine scans when responding to a user's query. AI developers use these kinds of databases to build and train the models used to power chatbots. In court, attorneys for the DOJ have argued that Google's Gemini pulls information from the company's search index, including citing search links and results, extending what they say is a self-serving cycle. They argue that Google's ability to monopolize the search market gives it user data, at a huge scale -- an advantage over other AI developers. The Justice Department argues Google's monopoly over search could have a direct effect on the development of generative AI, a type of artificial intelligence that uses existing data to create new content like text, videos or photos, based on a user's prompts or questions. Last week, the government called executives from several major AI companies, like OpenAI and Perplexity, in an attempt to argue that Google's stranglehold on search is preventing some of those companies from truly growing. The government argues that to level the playing field, Google should be forced to open its search data -- like users' search queries, clicks and results -- and license it to other competitors at a cost. This is on top of demands related to Google's search engine business, most notably that it should be forced to sell off its Chrome browser. Google flatly rejects the argument that it could monopolize the field of generative AI, saying competition in the AI race is healthy. In a recent blog post on Google's website, Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote that since the federal judge first ruled against Google over a year ago, "AI has already rapidly reshaped the industry, with new entrants and new ways of finding information, making it even more competitive." In court, Google's lawyers have argued that there are a host of AI companies with chatbots -- some of which are outperforming Gemini. OpenAI has ChatGPT, Meta has MetaAI and Perplexity has Perplexity AI. "There is no shortage of competition in that market, and ChatGPT and Meta are way ahead of everybody in terms of the distribution and usage at this point," said John E. Schmidtlein, a lawyer for Google, during his opening statement. "But don't take my word for it. Look at the data. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of downloads by ChatGPT." It should be no surprise that AI is coming up so much at this point in the trial, said Alissa Cooper, the executive director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, a nonpartisan tech research and policy center at Georgetown University focusing on AI, disinformation and data privacy. "If you look at search as a product today, you can't really think about search without thinking about AI," she said. "I think the case is a really great opportunity to try to ... analyze how Google has benefited specifically from the monopoly that it has in search, and ensure that the behavior that led to that can't be used to gain an unfair advantage in these other markets which are more nascent." Having access to Google's data, she said, "would provide them with the ability to build better chatbots, build better search engines, and potentially build other products that we haven't even thought of." To make that point, the DOJ called Nick Turley, OpenAI's head of product for ChatGPT, to the stand last Tuesday. During a long day of testimony, Turley detailed how without access to Google's search index and data, engineers for the growing company tried to build their own. ChatGPT, a large language model that can generate human-like responses, engage in conversations and perform tasks like explaining a tough-to-understand math lesson, was never intended to be a product for OpenAI, Turley said. But once it launched and went viral, the company found that people were using it for a host of needs. Though popular, ChatGPT had its drawbacks, like the bot's limited "knowledge," Turley said. Early on, ChatGPT was not connected to the internet and could only use information that it had been fed up to a certain point in its training. For example, Turley said, if a user asked "Who is the president?" the program would give a 2022 answer -- from when its "knowledge" effectively stopped. OpenAI couldn't build their own index fast enough to address their problems; they found that process incredibly expensive, time consuming and potentially years from coming to fruition, Turley said. So instead, they sought a partnership with a third party search provider. At one point, OpenAI tried to make a deal with Google to gain access to their search, but Google declined, seeing OpenAI as a direct competitor, Turley testified. But Google says companies like OpenAI are doing just fine without gaining access to the tech giant's own technology -- which it spent decades developing. These companies just want "handouts," said Schmidtlein. On the third day of the remedy trial, internal Google documents shared in court by the company's lawyers compared how many people are using Gemini versus its competitors. According to those documents, ChatGPT and MetaAI are the two leaders, with Gemini coming in third. They showed that this March, Gemini saw 35 million active daily users and 350 million monthly active users worldwide. That was up from 9 million daily active users in October 2024. But according to those documents, Gemini was still lagging behind ChatGPT, which reached 160 million daily users and around 600 million active users in March. These numbers show that competitors have no need to use Google's search data, valuable intellectual property that the tech giant spent decades building and maintaining, the company argues. "The notion that somehow ChatGPT can't get distribution is absurd," Schmidtlein said in court last week. "They have more distribution than anyone." In his ruling last year, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said Google's exclusive agreements with device makers, like Apple and Samsung, to make its search engine the default on those companies' phones helped maintain its monopoly. It remains a core issue for this remedy trial. Now, the DOJ is arguing that Google's deals with device manufacturers are also directly affecting AI companies and AI tech. In court, the DOJ argued that Google has replicated this kind of distribution deal by agreeing to pay Samsung what Dahlquist called a monthly "enormous sum" for Gemini to be installed on smartphones and other devices. Last Wednesday, the DOJ also called Dmitry Shevelenko, Perplexity's chief business officer, to testify that Google has effectively cut his company out from making deals with manufacturers and mobile carriers. Perplexity AIs not preloaded on any mobile devices in the U.S., despite many efforts to get phone companies to establish Perplexity as a default or exclusive app on devices, Shevelenko said. He compared Google's control in that space to that of a "mob boss." But Google's attorney, Christopher Yeager, noted in questioning Shevelenko that Perplexity has reached a valuation of over $9 billion -- insinuating the company is doing just fine in the marketplace. Despite testifying in court (for which he was subpoenaed, Shevelenko noted), he and other leaders at Perplexity are against the breakup of Google. In a statement on the company's website, the Perplexity team wrote that neither forcing Google to sell off Chrome nor to license search data to its competitors are the best solutions. "Neither of these address the root issue: consumers deserve choice," they wrote. This week the trial continues, with the DOJ calling its final witnesses this morning to testify about the feasibility of a Chrome divestiture and how the government's proposed remedies would help rivals compete. On Tuesday afternoon, Google will begin presenting its case, which is expected to feature the testimony of CEO Sundar Pichai, although the date of his appearance has not been specified. Closing arguments are expected at the end of May, and then Mehta will make his ruling. Google says once this phase is settled the company will appeal Mehta's ruling in the underlying case. Whatever Mehta decides in this remedy phase, Cooper thinks it will have effects beyond just the business of search engines. No matter what it is, she said, "it will be having some kind of impact on AI."

In court, CEO Sundar Pichai defends Google against the DOJ's 'extraordinary' proposals

Sundar Pichai, chief executive officer of Alphabet Inc., left, exits federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 30, 2025. Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai testified in federal court Wednesday that a Justice Department proposal that would force Google to share its search data, including with competitors, would be a "de facto divestiture" of the company's search engine that took decades of investment and innovation to build. He called the DOJ's proposal "so far reaching, so extraordinary" that it feels as though the government is asking for a sell-off of the company's core intellectual property. He said it's unclear how Google could go on to fund innovation if its work is to be given away at marginal cost. Pichai, 52, addressed the court from the witness box wearing a neat, dark suit during the second week of the remedies trial that will determine which penalties U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta will levy against the nearly $2 trillion company. Almost a year ago, Mehta ruled that Google had acted illegally to maintain a monopoly on the search engine market. When it filed its original case in 2020, the Justice Department took aim at Google's contracts with device makers like Apple and Samsung, which made the company's search engine the default on new phones. The DOJ argued that this unfairly boxed out competitors, and they're asking Mehta to rule that Google must stop paying for exclusive default placements. The government also wants Google to spin off its Chrome browser, arguing the world's most popular browser powers the tech company's advertising business by harvesting data from user activity from Chrome and Google search. Splitting this off would create more competition within the online search market, the DOJ argues. This phase of the trial has also focused heavily on Google's artificial intelligence products, like its Gemini chatbot. The DOJ has argued that Google has created a system in which its control of search gives an advantage to its AI products, while its AI products direct more users back to Google search. This, they argue, is a cycle that maintains the tech company's dominance and blocks competitors out of both marketplaces. And to break it, they argue that Google should be ordered to license its search data -- such as users' search terms and results -- to other companies. The Justice Department wrapped its case on Tuesday afternoon and Google is now presenting evidence and calling experts and witnesses to testify, which will include more executives from Google, Mozilla and Apple. Google maintains that it will appeal Mehta's underlying ruling once the penalty phase of the trial is over. Pichai, who joined Google in 2004, held many roles at the company before taking the top gig, including overseeing Chrome. The theme of his testimony was of little surprise, as the tech giant has long argued that the DOJ's proposed remedies are both dangerous and "unprecedented" and would hurt American consumers, the economy and tech innovation. It focused on how Google views the development of AI and how it is innovating the technology. "AI is one of the most profound technologies humans will ever work on," Pichai said. He testified that Google has spent roughly $49 billion on AI research and development and is considered one of the top two or three companies in the world spending in this space. When Pichai took the helm of Alphabet, Google's parent company, he directed the company to become "AI first" and to invest deeply in this technology, believing that people are not just looking for information on the internet, but seeking to get things done. AI can do that, he said. The company integrates AI into many products, but first wove the technology into Google's search engine, where it led to a major improvement in the quality of search, he said. Mehta asked Pichai how he sees AI disrupting search in just a few years. AI "will deeply transform" Google search, Pichai replied, and the way it will evolve will be very profound. Pichai called this a "dynamic moment" when a number of newly developed chatbots are reaching tens of thousands of users each day. Pichai said Google views its AI chatbot, Gemini, as a leading model in the industry, but still a "big gap" remains between them and what he views as the market leader: OpenAI's ChatGPT. In court, Google's lawyers have previously argued that ChatGPT and Meta's MetaAI chatbots outstrip Gemini's popularity, evidence that Google is not dominating in this marketplace. Pichai said there is a lot of competition in this space and that ultimately, "The best product will win the marketplace." The DOJ had previously called Nick Turley, OpenAI's head of product for ChatGPT, to the stand to make their case for why they fear Google's monopoly on search could ultimately creep into the AI market. Turley testified that the company wants access to Google's search index and data to improve its own technology. Google's search index is basically a giant database of the pages and information on the internet. When you type a query into Google's search engine, it scans this database in order to return links to webpages. But AI developers can also use databases like these to train large language models, like chatbots, so that they can generate human-like responses and engage in conversations. Turley testified that after ChatGPT became a viral hit, OpenAI tried to develop their own search index, but it was too expensive and time consuming. Instead, he said, they sought a partnership with a third party provider -- and Google rebuffed them. Google's attorneys are expected to call witnesses through the end of next week, and closing arguments will be made at the end of May. Mehta is expected to make a decision by August.

Google CEO Pichai: AI will be huge part of search

Driving the news: Pichai testified in a federal court in Washington, D.C. as part of the DOJ's search antitrust case against the tech giant. How it works: The DOJ and Google have different ideas for what those remedies should be, and are hashing that out in court. Google disputes that it is a monopoly altogether and plans to dispute Mehta's ruling after the remedy phase is over. What they're saying: Google attorney John Schmidtlein asked Pichai about Google's investments in AI with its Gemini product, and how it plans on tying it into Google search: Pichai argued that Google has not shut off other companies' ability to compete in the rapidly growing generative AI space: Pichai also said Google would experiment with putting advertisements in Gemini search results in the future, and that it was hashing out an agreement with Apple that would offer Gemini AI as an option for inquiries to Apple Intelligence by "the middle of this year." The intrigue: Originally filed in 2020 under the first Trump administration, the DOJ initially went after Google for its costly agreements with device makers and browsers to favor Google search, which smaller tech companies and browsers have argued completely cut off their ability to compete in the space.

Google and our AI future

The government is finally moving to break up Google's search monopoly -- just as the real battle has shifted to artificial intelligence. In a Washington courtroom, the Justice Department is laying out its case for dismantling parts of Google's empire, the culmination of an antitrust lawsuit first filed in 2020. But in the years since the original complaint focused on search engine dominance, the technological landscape has dramatically transformed. What began as a case about Google's grip on search is now equally about preventing the tech giant from leveraging that position to control the next frontier: AI. "This court's remedy should be forward-looking and not ignore what is on the horizon," David Dahlquist, the DOJ's acting deputy director of antitrust civil litigation, said in his opening statement. The argument underscored that regulators fear they're fighting yesterday's war even as a new one unfolds. Officials intend to seek a range of other remedies discussed in a court filing last month, including imposing data licensing requirements and requiring more transparency for advertisers on where their ads appear. The DOJ is also expected to demand "measures related to artificial intelligence and its Android smartphone operating system" that would likely stop Google from hoarding user data for both search results and AI products. That could pave the way for more users to opt their content out of AI training. Bloomberg reports that in addition to banning Google's exclusive default deals, the government might force Google to sell off Chrome, the world's most popular browser. Tech rivals have quickly positioned themselves for the potential aftermath. An OpenAI executive said the company would be interested in buying Chrome, giving the company an easy path to building an "AI-first" browsing experience that could transform how users navigate the web. OpenAI isn't alone. Perplexity, an AI company barely three years old, has entered the Chrome conversation. Even Yahoo, a former internet giant seeking relevance again, has reportedly shown interest in acquiring Chrome, adding another layer to the competition. Google CEO Sundar Pichai has mounted a vigorous defense against the government. Testifying in federal court on Wednesday, Pichai warned that the DOJ's proposal to force Google to share its search data would amount to a "de facto divestiture" of the company's search engine, which took decades of investment to build. "AI is one of the most profound technologies humans will ever work on," Pichai told the court, pointing out that Google has invested approximately $49 billion in AI research and development. He characterized the government's demands as "so far-reaching, so extraordinary" that they effectively ask Google to give away its core intellectual property. Asked by Judge Mehta how AI might transform search in the coming years, Pichai acknowledged that AI will "deeply transform" Google search in "very profound" ways. Yet he maintained that competition in AI remains fierce, pointing to what he called a "big gap" between Google's Gemini and market leader ChatGPT. Still, court testimony revealed Google is already replicating its search playbook in the AI realm, paying Samsung substantial sums to make Gemini the default AI assistant on its devices -- a strategy remarkably similar to what triggered its current legal troubles. The government's theory is straightforward: Google has created a self-reinforcing cycle where its control of search helps improve its AI products, which in turn sends more users back to Google search, maintaining the company's dominance and blocking competitors in both markets. At the heart of this argument is data -- specifically, Google's massive search index, containing hundreds of billions of websites across more than 100 million gigabytes, according to court documents. This vast trove of information gives Google an immense advantage in training AI models, a point the DOJ has hammered home by calling executives from competing AI companies to testify. For media companies and publishers, the implications are significant. Unlike OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta, Google has generally avoided paying publishers for content used by its AI systems. The exception is Reddit, which reportedly receives $60 million annually for access to its user-generated content. "It would be the worst of both worlds," Pete Pachal, an industry analyst, said in his Substack, warning about a Google-dominated AI future. "No licensing checks and no search referrals, because user queries never leave the on-device chatbox." Google denies that it could monopolize AI, pointing to strong competition in the space. Internal documents presented in court showed that while Gemini reached 35 million daily active users by March, it still trails behind what it estimates is ChatGPT's 160 million daily users. The irony isn't lost on industry veterans: Google itself rose to prominence in the aftermath of the original browser wars of the 1990s, when Microsoft's Internet Explorer faced antitrust action. That intervention created space for innovation, allowing upstarts like Google to flourish in a more open internet ecosystem. Now Google finds itself cast as the monopolist, while a new generation of AI companies hopes regulatory action will give them the same opportunity Google once had -- the chance to compete on a level playing field.

What the case against Google is really about

A version of this article originally appeared in Quartz's members-only Weekend Brief newsletter. Quartz members get access to exclusive newsletters and more. Sign up here. The government is finally moving to break up Google's search monopoly -- just as the real battle has shifted to artificial intelligence. In a Washington courtroom, the Justice Department is laying out its case for dismantling parts of Google's empire, the culmination of an antitrust lawsuit first filed in 2020. But in the years since the original complaint focused on search engine dominance, the technological landscape has dramatically transformed. What began as a case about Google's grip on search is now equally about preventing the tech giant from leveraging that position to control the next frontier: AI. "This court's remedy should be forward-looking and not ignore what is on the horizon," David Dahlquist, the DOJ's acting deputy director of antitrust civil litigation, said in his opening statement. The argument underscored that regulators fear they're fighting yesterday's war even as a new one unfolds. Officials intend to seek a range of other remedies discussed in a court filing last month, including imposing data licensing requirements and requiring more transparency for advertisers on where their ads appear. The DOJ is also expected to demand "measures related to artificial intelligence and its Android smartphone operating system" that would likely stop Google from hoarding user data for both search results and AI products. That could pave the way for more users to opt their content out of AI training. Bloomberg reports that in addition to banning Google's exclusive default deals, the government might force Google to sell off Chrome, the world's most popular browser. Tech rivals have quickly positioned themselves for the potential aftermath. An OpenAI executive said the company would be interested in buying Chrome, giving the company an easy path to building an "AI-first" browsing experience that could transform how users navigate the web. OpenAI isn't alone. Perplexity, an AI company barely three years old, has entered the Chrome conversation. Even Yahoo, a former internet giant seeking relevance again, has reportedly shown interest in acquiring Chrome, adding another layer to the competition. Google CEO Sundar Pichai has mounted a vigorous defense against the government. Testifying in federal court on Wednesday, Pichai warned that the DOJ's proposal to force Google to share its search data would amount to a "de facto divestiture" of the company's search engine, which took decades of investment to build. "AI is one of the most profound technologies humans will ever work on," Pichai told the court, pointing out that Google has invested approximately $49 billion in AI research and development. He characterized the government's demands as "so far-reaching, so extraordinary" that they effectively ask Google to give away its core intellectual property. Asked by Judge Mehta how AI might transform search in the coming years, Pichai acknowledged that AI will "deeply transform" Google search in "very profound" ways. Yet he maintained that competition in AI remains fierce, pointing to what he called a "big gap" between Google's Gemini and market leader ChatGPT. Still, court testimony revealed Google is already replicating its search playbook in the AI realm, paying Samsung substantial sums to make Gemini the default AI assistant on its devices -- a strategy remarkably similar to what triggered its current legal troubles. The government's theory is straightforward: Google has created a self-reinforcing cycle where its control of search helps improve its AI products, which in turn sends more users back to Google search, maintaining the company's dominance and blocking competitors in both markets. At the heart of this argument is data -- specifically, Google's massive search index, containing hundreds of billions of websites across more than 100 million gigabytes, according to court documents. This vast trove of information gives Google an immense advantage in training AI models, a point the DOJ has hammered home by calling executives from competing AI companies to testify. For media companies and publishers, the implications are significant. Unlike OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta, Google has generally avoided paying publishers for content used by its AI systems. The exception is Reddit, which reportedly receives $60 million annually for access to its user-generated content. "It would be the worst of both worlds," Pete Pachal, an industry analyst, said in his Substack, warning about a Google-dominated AI future. "No licensing checks and no search referrals, because user queries never leave the on-device chatbox." Google denies that it could monopolize AI, pointing to strong competition in the space. Internal documents presented in court showed that while Gemini reached 35 million daily active users by March, it still trails behind what it estimates is ChatGPT's 160 million daily users. The irony isn't lost on industry veterans: Google itself rose to prominence in the aftermath of the original browser wars of the 1990s, when Microsoft's Internet Explorer faced antitrust action. That intervention created space for innovation, allowing upstarts like Google to flourish in a more open internet ecosystem. Now Google finds itself cast as the monopolist, while a new generation of AI companies hopes regulatory action will give them the same opportunity Google once had -- the chance to compete on a level playing field.

Google CEO emphasizes AI competition as search giant fights breakup

Google CEO Sundar Pichai highlighted the competitive nature of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) on Tuesday, as the search giant seeks to fight the Department of Justice's (DOJ) push to break up the company. Pichai took the stand for about an hour and a half as part of a three-week hearing to help the court determine corrective measures after Google was found last August to have an illegal monopoly over online search. The case has increasingly centered on the future of AI and what the technology could mean for Google's dominance. Pichai on Tuesday described his push to make Google an "AI-first company," detailing how the technology is used across the company's products, including search. The tech firm also has a separate AI chatbot called Gemini, which the CEO said faces stiff competition from the likes of ChatGPT, Grok and DeepSeek. "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, referring to ChatGPT maker OpenAI. He noted that Google lost out to OpenAI on a deal with Apple to integrate its AI capabilities on the iPhone maker's devices. The DOJ has argued that the court should look to the future as it seeks to address the monopolization finding in the case, taking into account how Google's search dominance could give it a leg up on AI. The government is asking the court to force Google to divest from its Chrome browser, in addition to sharing its search data and syndication with rivals. It also seeks to bar the exclusive search agreements at the core of the case. The court found that Google illegally maintained its monopoly through the exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and browser developers that ensured its search product was the default. The tech giant has criticized the government's proposal, arguing it goes well beyond the facts of the case. It has instead suggested more limited restrictions on its search agreements. Pichai argued Tuesday that the DOJ's remedies, particularly on data sharing and syndication, would discourage the company from investing in research and development, describing it as a "de facto divestiture." He also reiterated the company's concerns about data privacy and security surrounding both data sharing and the Chrome divestiture. However, DOJ attorney Veronica Onyema sought to underscore in her cross-examination of the Google CEO that other companies can provide data security and that Google has had its own privacy problems in the past. Pichai also confirmed to Onyema that Apple has expressed interest in reaching agreements with AI providers other than OpenAI and that Google hopes to strike a deal by the middle of this year. Google faces an increasingly uncertain future after losing two major antitrust cases. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the tech firm also had an illegal monopoly over advertising technology. The tech firm has claimed a partial victory in the ad tech case, after the judge rejected the DOJ's arguments that there was a separate advertiser market and that its ad tech acquisitions were unlawful. The company has vowed to appeal the rest of the decision. Google also plans to appeal the ruling in the search case, but it must first complete the remedies phase. The judge overseeing the case has said he intends to rule by August.

Why the AI race could be upended by a judge's decision on Google

A US federal judge's ruling against Google's search monopoly has shifted focus to AI, with concerns that Google could use its dominance to control the AI market. Rival companies like OpenAI argue Google's practices hinder competition, while Google insists the AI sector remains competitive. The case could reshape the AI landscape.A federal judge issued a landmark ruling last year, saying that Google had become a monopolist in internet search. But in a hearing that began last week to figure out how to fix the problem, the emphasis has frequently landed on a different technology: artificial intelligence. In US District Court in Washington last week, a Justice Department lawyer argued that Google could use its search monopoly to become the dominant player in AI. Google executives disclosed internal discussions about expanding the reach of Gemini, the company's AI chatbot. And executives at rival AI companies said that Google's power was an obstacle to their success. On Wednesday, the first substantial question posed to Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, after he took the stand was also about AI. Throughout his 90-minute testimony, the subject came up more than two dozen times. "I think it's one of the most dynamic moments in the industry," said Pichai. "I've seen users' home screens with, like, seven to nine applications of chatbots which they are trying and playing and training with." An antitrust lawsuit about the past has effectively turned into a fight about the future as the government and Google face off over proposed changes to the tech giant's business that could shift the course of the AI race. For more than 20 years, Google's search engine dominated the way people got answers online. Now the federal court is in essence grappling with whether the Silicon Valley giant will dominate the next era of how people get information on the internet as consumers turn to a new crop of AI chatbots to answer questions, find solutions to their problems and learn about the world. At the hearing, government lawyers have argued that Google's monopolistic tactics in search could be applied to make its Gemini chatbot a ubiquitous AI product. That cannot be allowed to happen in the emerging field of AI, the government has said, to ensure that consumers have choices of products for use well into the future. Google has argued that the court does not need to intervene because the rapid growth of OpenAI -- the AI startup that helps power Apple's AI product on the iPhone -- and other rivals shows that the market is rife with competition already. How much Judge Amit P. Mehta, who will determine the fixes in the search case, buys into these AI arguments could reshape the fierce contest to lead the technology. Google is already a leading AI player, with Gemini attracting more than 350 million monthly active users, according to data at the trial. Any measures to hinder its efforts or help its competitors would have big implications for that race. The government has asked the court to force Google to sell its Chrome browser and share data with rivals, including its search results and ads, among other measures. Government requests for fixing monopolies are forward-looking by nature, attempting to undo years of damaged competition and opening markets to new rivals. From the government's perspective, "you do not want to have spent five years and a whole bunch of agency resources bringing a case that doesn't really do anything," said John Newman, the deputy director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition during the Biden administration. A Google spokesperson pointed to the opening statement by the company's lead lawyer, John Schmidtlein, who said the market for AI was "performing extraordinarily competitively." The Justice Department declined to comment. The hearing this year follows Mehta's 2024 ruling that Google had illegally protected its monopoly by paying companies like Apple, Mozilla and Samsung for its search engine to come up automatically in web browsers and on smartphones. From the hearing's start, government lawyers put AI front and center. The first witness, University of Texas associate professor of computer science Gregory Durrett, gave Mehta a crash course on AI. In response, Mehta asked questions about how chatbots work and how they were incorporated into Google's products. The government presented documents showing that Google last year had considered an arrangement with wireless carriers and smartphone manufacturers that would have given Gemini prime placement on devices alongside its search engine. It was reminiscent of the deals that Google had signed to get prime placement for its search engine. Google decided not to move forward with the Gemini plan with wireless carriers and smartphone makers after the judge's search ruling last year. It ultimately reached a separate deal with Samsung to put Gemini on Samsung's smartphones, the documents showed. A Google executive testified that the agreement with Samsung gave the smartphone maker the ability to work with other AI services. Pichai testified that the company had focused on signing deals that aligned with its own proposal for remedies, which says smartphone makers should have more freedom to decide what Google apps to install. Executives from rival AI companies, such as OpenAI, also testified that the government's proposed changes to Google's business would make it easier for them to build products and reach consumers. Nicholas Turley, the head of product for OpenAI's ChatGPT, said on the stand that his company had rolled out a prototype search tool called SearchGPT in July and asked Google for a deal to access its data. But Google turned down OpenAI because "it would involve too many complexities," according to an email from an OpenAI executive. "I was aware that Google might not be incentivized to offer us good terms, given the competitive nature of some of our offerings," Turley said. If Mehta required Google to share more data with OpenAI, the company would be able to "build a better product faster," he added. OpenAI would also be interested in buying Google's Chrome browser if it were for sale, Turley added. Dmitry Shevelenko, the chief business officer of the AI search startup Perplexity, testified that his firm had tried to reach deals with phone companies to offer its chatbot automatically -- but one of them already had an arrangement with Google. That company "really likes our assistant, thinks it is great for their users, but they can't get out of their Google obligations, and so they're unable to change the default assistant on the device," he said. Google's lawyers countered that the company was not locking smartphone makers into overly restrictive deals to offer Gemini. They repeatedly said many AI companies were thriving and referred to data that showed ChatGPT was used more widely than any other chatbot. "I think ChatGPT is doing just fine without any of the remedies in this case," said Schmidtlein in his opening statement. "These companies are competing just fine without plaintiffs' remedies."