لخّصلي

An antitrust lawsuit against Google, initially focused on its internet search monopoly, has evolved to address its potential dominance in artificial intelligence (AI). Federal Judge Amit Mehta aimed to curb Google's search stronghold without hindering its ability to compete in generative AI, an emerging field where chatbots are gaining importance. Mehta acknowledged the challenge, likening it to gazing into a crystal ball.

The Justice Department had sought severe penalties, including forcing Google to divest its Chrome browser and banning all exclusive deals for default search engine status. However, Google retains Chrome and can make non-exclusive financial deals. It will also share some search data with competitors, though details are pending. Many experts, like Alissa Cooper, find these remedies "hollow," arguing they lack significant intervention.

Analysts fear the ruling might not prevent Google from leveraging its vast search data trove for an AI advantage. With chatbots like Gemini and ChatGPT now challenging traditional search, experts suggest the judge viewed AI as a distinct battlefield, trusting new competition to address market issues.

Tim Wu, a tech advisor, questioned if Google could use its past tactics to dominate AI. Mehta's decision does extend the ban on exclusive distribution deals to AI chatbots ("answer engines") and establishes a technical oversight committee. However, Wu and others, including former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, argue the judiciary is ill-equipped to regulate fast-moving tech with outdated laws like the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Wheeler asserts that Google already controls the data, reach, computing power, and money crucial for AI competitiveness, rendering antitrust cases insufficient.

Google maintains it is not the AI pacesetter, citing OpenAI's ChatGPT, and plans to appeal the verdict and penalties. The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court by 2027-2028, a timeframe critics deem "a millennium" in terms of innovation.

When the government launched an antitrust lawsuit against Google five years ago. il was
all about whether the tech giant had a monopoly on internet search, But by the time the
judge ruled on punishments for the company this month. the future of artificial
intelligence was front and center,
Why. Google's search engine !rial is aboug A1
Federal district court judge Amit Mehta tried to thread a needle with his latest ruling,
rupping Google for its stranglehold over search without hobbling its ability to compete in
the newer field of generative artificial intelligence as chatbots grow in importance-
Mehta recognized the challenge, writing, "the court is asked to gate into a crystal ball
and 100k to the future, Not exactly a judge's forte."
Some analysts fear he may have done enough to put Google in check, though,
because the vast trove of data its search engine collects gives ihe company a huge
advantage when it comes to developing All -mey also say the case highlights the limits of
the judiciary When it comes to crafting policy for fast-moving technologies,
The Justice Department and Google battle over how to fix a search engine
monopoly
The Department of Justice had sought stiff penalties, including Google's divestment from
its Chrome browser. a corporate crown jewel, and a han on exclusive deals the company
made with device makers for Google to be their default search engine.
But Google gets to keep Chrome. and financial deals to make Google the main search
engine can happen —just not exclusive ones. The company will also have to share some
Of its valuable search data With competitors, although those details haven't been nailed
down yet.
"l thiJik when you 100k at package of the remedies all together, they ring hollow,"
said Alissa Cooper, an internet policy expert and executive director of the Knight-
Georgetown Institute. a think tank focused on tech policy, doesn't really propose very
significant interventions of any kind."
What happens to the internet if no one clicks search links?
Chatbots, like Google's Gemini and its rivals, ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity,
now nipping at the heels of traditional search, as people increasingly use them to answer
questions instead Of typing queries into search engines like Google,
Cooper says the judge seemed to see A1 as a completely new battlefield that will have its
own set of and And that's Why he didn't lay down strict punishments that
would prevent Google from turning its strengths in search into strengths in A1,
She said he seems 10 believe "we should trust that the competition that emerges
these new players will take care of the problem that led to bringing this case in the first
place. i'
Like a parole officer?
Even with steps the judge took to try to rein in Google's dominance of internet search,
Tim Wu, a Biden administration tech advisor and professor at the Columbia University
law school. says it's not clear if this antitrust ease will stop Google from throwing its
weight around to dominate A1.
"The question is. as far as lim concerned, does Google get to use the same techniques that
it used to win and dominate search — old search — for A1?" he said.
Judge Mehta's decision to bar Google from making exclusive distribution deals was
worded in a way that applies to A1 chatbots, sometimes called "answer engines," as
well. He also assigned a technical committee to oversee the firm in the coming years, and
ostensibly make sure it plays by the rules. Wu it'S unclear what impact that panel
will have,
"IS this like a parole officer who Google has to check in With every, you know, month or
so? Oris the court sort of done with it?" he said.Either way, he and others argue, the government should be doing more to regulate tech
policy than just filing court cases.
Tom Wheeler, a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, agrees.
He said this case shows that courts can't keep up with technology, particularly in a case
that hinges on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which is more than a century old.
"You've got to feel for Judge Mehta because he was trying to apply a law written in 1890
to what's going on today in artificial intelligence," he said.
Wheeler says antitrust cases are insufficient for regulating a fast-evolving market like AL
He notes that competitiveness in the A1 race will be fueled by data, reach, computing
power, and money. "The reality is that Google controls all of those," Wheeler said.
In court, CEO Sundar Pichai defends Google against the DOJ's
'extraordinary' proposals
In court this spring, Google's attorneys argued that when it comes to A1, the company is
not top dog. The pacesetter is OpenAI's ChatGPT. Google's Gemini chatbot is a
competitor, and Google gives brief A1 answers to some search queries.
Google declined to comment for this story, but has said it's likely to appeal both the
penalties and Mehta's underlying verdict that it has a monopoly in search.
"This case will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court, probably in the 2027,
2028 timeframe, which is seven or eight years after it was filed — and a millennium in
terms of innovation and development," Wheeler said.