U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who previously ruled that Google illegally monopolized online search and related advertising, posed critical questions on Friday during closing arguments. His inquiries delved into the viability of new search engines emerging in an AI-driven world and whether AI companies should be considered direct competitors in the online search market. This pivotal case has already sent ripples through the tech industry, notably impacting Google's share price after exposing Apple's exploration of AI-based search alternatives.
Judge Mehta pressed DOJ attorney David Dahlquist on whether AI should be viewed as a mere access point to search or as a fundamentally competing technology. He asked pointedly, "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?" Dahlquist maintained that search would endure and that the DOJ's proposed remedies were designed to prevent Google from stifling AI-powered competitors.
Google's attorney, John Schmidtlein, countered that while generative AI is undoubtedly influencing search, Google has proactively addressed competition concerns by ending exclusive agreements with wireless carriers and smartphone manufacturers like Samsung. This move, he argued, allows these companies the freedom to pre-load rival search and AI applications on new devices.
However, the Department of Justice, alongside a coalition of states, is advocating for more drastic measures. Their demands include compelling Google to divest its Chrome browser, share its vast search data, and cease the multi-billion dollar payments made to Apple and other entities to maintain its default search engine status on new devices. The trial, which commenced in April, is expected to see a ruling from Judge Mehta by August.
The DOJ has also voiced concerns during the trial about the symbiotic relationship between Google's search monopoly and its AI products, such as Gemini, suggesting that each reinforces the other's market dominance.
Adding another layer to the complex debate, Nick Turley, OpenAI's product head for ChatGPT, testified that his company is years away from its goal of answering 80% of queries using its own search technology. Turley highlighted that access to Google's search data would significantly accelerate ChatGPT's improvement. He even expressed OpenAI's interest in acquiring Chrome if Google were forced to sell it.
Yet, Judge Mehta expressed reservations about classifying companies like OpenAI or Perplexity as direct Google competitors eligible for any mandated data sharing. He remarked to DOJ attorney Adam Severt, "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." Severt responded that while the initial phase of the case focused on past conduct, the proposed remedies must be forward-looking to address future market dynamics.
Google's attorney, Schmidtlein, vehemently argued against providing successful AI companies like OpenAI with technology that Google has spent two decades developing. He asserted, "Coming to Google and asking Google for a handout when they are the market leader seems completely disproportionate to what this case is about."
The ongoing trial underscores the profound challenge of applying traditional antitrust frameworks to a rapidly evolving digital landscape. As AI continues to redefine how users access and interact with information, the court's ultimate decision will not only shape the future of online search but also set a precedent for how technological innovation is balanced with fair competition in the digital age.