WASHINGTON: 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.
US 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 Judge 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 percent 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.