While facing a crucial shift to artificial intelligence (AI) that might undermine its position, Google has been back in federal court to defend its internet empire.
In a legal proceeding that will decide the company’s plans to change after its dominant search engine was declared an illegal monopoly by US District Judge Amit Mehta last year, one of the key issues raised on Friday were the key issues being discussed during the closing arguments of the case.
Justice Department attorneys are trying to persuade Mehta to pass a radical change 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 in response to the brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings.
As alternative, conversational search options are emerging from AI startups hoping to use the Department of Justice’s four-and-a-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier, Google lawyers claim only minor concessions are necessary.
Mehta hints that he was looking for a middle ground between the two camps’ proposed remedies by using Friday’s hearing to question both sides’ attorneys and pose probing and pointed questions.
The judge remarked, “We’re not trying to kneecap Google,” adding that the goal was to “kickstart” rivals’ ability to challenge the search giant’s dominance.
Mehta will spend the majority of the next few months considering a decision before Labor Day in the US (September 1), following the daylong closing arguments. Google has already made a promise to challenge the court’s ruling, which would require it to seek redress before the judge grants a ruling in its search engine monopoly.
AI a turning point
Both sides of this showdown agree that AI will have an impact on how the industry will evolve in the future, but they disagree on how Google will react.
The Justice Department contends that Google’s power cannot be stifled by AI alone, and that the parent company’s $2 trillion parent company, Alphabet Inc., is one of its biggest shareholders.
Mehta stated in a court filing on Friday that he was still unsure about whether to include AI’s potential to disrupt the search industry in his upcoming ruling. Mehta’s opening statement, “This is what I’ve been struggling with,” was.
Justice prosecutor David Dahlquist urged the judge to appoint forward-thinking remedies that wouldn’t allow Google to use its monopoly to profit unfairly from the AI race.
Despite opposition from OpenAI and Perplexity, Google has already been using AI to transform its search engine into an answer engine, which has so far helped maintain its position as the internet’s main gateway.
The Justice Department contends that Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai’s nearly 20-year-old contribution to the development of the Chrome browser would be one of the most successful countermeasures to stop Google from amassing sizable amounts of browser traffic and personal data that could be used to keep its grip on the AI era.
If Mehta orders the sale of the Chrome browser, executives from OpenAI and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders.
Google should “get to work” on its own products, according to Google’s attorney John Schmidtlein, who spoke on Friday.
Apple, mobile app developers, legal experts, startups, and other parties have voiced their opinions regarding Google’s future.
Apple filed briefs opposing the Justice Department’s proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements, claiming that it collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine for the iPhone and other devices.
Apple told the judge that the contract ban would make Google even more powerful because it would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would still choose its search engine. The company also claimed that the company would lose money by investing in its own research. Additionally, the Cupertino, California-based business claimed a ban wouldn’t force it to create a rival search engine to Google.
A group of legal experts claimed in other filings that the Justice Department’s proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would cause unwarranted government interference in a company’s operations.
Meanwhile, former FTC officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers expressed concern that another proposal, which would require Google to share its data with rival search engines, “does not account for the expectations users have developed over the years regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship” of their personal information.
Due to the negative effects the proposed changes would have on the tech sector, the App Association, a group that mostly represents small software developers, also advised Mehta against adopting them.
