 |
Google is facing the risk of being broken up and having to sell its Chrome browser. Photo: Gabby Jones/Bloomberg . |
Judge Amit Mehta, who oversees the Justice Department ’s antitrust case, is considering sweeping changes to Google that could break it up and limit its AI products, ending its search monopoly.
The Justice Department is also considering banning Google from paying to be the default search engine, a rule that would apply to AI products like Gemini, which the government argues have benefited greatly from Google’s monopoly.
Exclusive agreements
On May 30, in U.S. District Court in Washington, lawyers representing Google and the Justice Department answered Judge Amit Mehta's final questions in the government's antitrust lawsuit against the search giant.
The judge questioned whether curbing Google’s position in generative AI was the right way to address its dominance, and he also considered forcing Google to share data with competitors and prohibiting the company from paying to be the default search engine.
“Do you think anyone will stand aside and build a new search engine when they see what's happening in the AI space today?” he asked.
 |
Google pays billions of dollars each year to Apple to be the default search engine. Photo: Reuters. |
“The short answer is yes, Judge. We believe the proposed remedies will open that door. The reason we focus on generative AI is because it is the search engine of the future,” said Justice Department Attorney David Dahlquist.
Last year, Google was found by Mr. Mehta to have an illegal monopoly in online search. Antitrust regulators are also concerned that Google’s dominance could extend to generative AI.
The lawsuit centers on Google’s agreements with Apple and device manufacturers, under which Google pays billions of dollars each year to be the default search engine.
Google’s lawyers argued that banning these contracts would only benefit rivals like Microsoft and harm consumers and device makers. Google’s counterproposal is to share revenue with competing browsers.
Judge Mehta expressed concern that cutting off Google's payments would cause significant harm to the market.
“Every distribution partner said, ‘This is going to hurt us.’ Some even said it would put them out of business. Is this the best outcome, to fix one market and hurt others?” Mr. Mehta said.
"That's a fair question, but it puts personal interests above the public interest. Also, I think there's the possibility of some influence from other forces," Dahlquist replied.
Meanwhile, Google's general counsel, John Schmidtlein, opposed any payment ban against the company, asserting that the agreements "have no bearing on the infringement in this case."
Google refutes
Google argues that the government's proposals are too extreme, harming the US economy and consumers and undermining the country's technological leadership.
Mr. Schmidtlein argued that the court should focus on addressing specific illegal conduct, rather than imposing remedies on Google’s generative AI products. However, Judge Mehta was skeptical of Google’s argument, and he also said that he was seriously considering AI-related remedies in his decision.
“In my opinion, not providing any long-term solutions that would allow competitors to actually compete is a shortcoming in the solution,” Mr. Mehta commented.
 |
Google believes that its AI products like Gemini are not related to monopoly violations. Photo: Google. |
Mr. Schmidtlein counters that generative AI products are relevant to the search market.
There is no evidence that the artificial intelligence products were harmed by the actions in this case. They could not have been harmed because they did not exist at the time," the lawyer said.
AI chatbots are seen as an existential threat to traditional search, as they can directly answer users with AI-generated responses, rather than displaying a long list of search results as before.
During the trial, AI companies like Perplexity testified that they were being hampered by Google. Specifically, Dmitry Shevelenko - Perplexity's Chief Business Officer said that Google's contract with Motorola prevented the smartphone maker from making Perplexity the default assistant on its new devices.
Chrome's "Fate"
The Justice Department has also asked Judge Mehta to order Google to sell its Chrome web browser, in an effort to promote competition and clear the market.
“Chrome is the most popular and widely used browser in the United States,” said Attorney Dahlquist. He also noted that Chrome’s only real competitor is Apple’s Safari, which also uses Google by default. Chrome currently accounts for 35% of all Google searches.
Representatives from OpenAI and Perplexity testified in court, expressing interest in acquiring the Chrome browser if Google were forced to divest.
 |
35% of Google searches are on the Chrome browser. Photo: Pexels. |
But Judge Mehta questioned whether the divestment would actually provide the competitive benefits it was intended to provide. He worried that Chrome could be acquired by a company that prioritizes its own search product, or even by a company that would re-install Google as the default.
Dahlquist envisions a third scenario, a healthy competition for the Chrome browser’s search page. In this scenario, the new owner of Chrome could accept payments from other companies to make it the default search engine, or it could still favor Google as the primary search engine. However, Google would be prohibited from paying for that position until the current ban is lifted.
Judge Mehta also supported this idea, arguing that divesting Chrome was simpler and more effective than other remedies. Ultimately, Mehta told Dahlquist that he was “not seeking to weaken Google,” but rather to support potential competitors.
“We’re trying to enable competitors, not put them on par with Google from the start,” he explained.
Source: https://znews.vn/so-phan-cua-google-dat-tren-tren-ban-can-post1557259.html
Comment (0)