(Bloomberg) – A federal judge issued one. But in an audience that started last week to find out how to solve the problem, the emphasis often fell on a different technology: artificial intelligence.
At the US District Court in Washington last week, a Justice Department lawyer argued that Google could use its search monopoly to become the dominant AI player. Google executives have released internal discussions about the company’s AI chatbot. And executives from Rivals from AI said that Google’s power was an obstacle to their success.
On Wednesday, the first substantial question asked to Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, after he took over the statement, was also about AI. Throughout his 90 -minute testimony, the subject came about more than two dozen times.
“I think it’s one of the most dynamic moments in the industry,” said Pichai. “I saw the initial screens of users with, like seven to nine chatbots apps they are experiencing, playing and training.”
An antitrust action on the past has effectively turned into a future dispute, while Government and Google face each other in the proposed changes in the technology giant business that can change the course of AI race.
For over 20 years, Google’s search engine has dominated the way people get answers online. Now, the Federal Court is, in essence, dealing with the question of whether the Silicon Valley giant will dominate the next age of how people get information on the internet, as consumers turn to a new AI chatbots crop to answer questions, find solutions to their problems and learn about the world.
Continues after advertising
At the hearing, government lawyers argued that Google’s monopolistic tactics in search could be applied to make their chatbot Gemini an ia ia product. This cannot be allowed in the emerging field of AI, the government said to ensure that consumers have product options for use in the future.
Google argued that the court does not need to intervene because – AI startup that helps boost Apple AI product on iPhone – and other competitors shows that the market is already full of competition.
How much Judge Amit P. Mehta, who will determine solutions in the case of the search, believes in these AI arguments can reshape the fierce dispute to lead technology. Google is already one of the main players in AI, with Gemini attracting more than 350 million monthly active users, according to data presented at the trial. Any measures to make their efforts difficult or help their competitors would have great implications for this race.
Continues after advertising
The government has asked the court to force Google to sell its Chrome browser and share data with competitors, including its search results and ads, among other measures.
Government requests to correct monopolies are, by nature, aimed at the future, trying to undo years of impaired competition and open markets for new competitors. From the government point of view, “you don’t want to be five years old and a lot of funds from the agency bringing a case that really does nothing,” said John Newman, assistant director of the Federal Commerce Commission Commission Competition Agency.
A Google spokesman pointed to the company’s main lawyer’s opening statement, John Schmidtlein, who said the AI market was “operating in an extraordinarily competitive way.” The Justice Department refused to comment.
Continues after advertising
This year’s audience follows Mehta’s decision in 2024, which said Google had illegally protected its monopoly by paying companies like Apple, Mozilla and Samsung to automatically appear in browsers and smartphones.
Since the beginning of the hearing, the government’s lawyers have highlighted the AI.
The first witness, Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of Texas, Gregory Durrett, gave Mehta a quick AI class. In response, Mehta asked questions about how chatbots work and how they were incorporated into Google products.
Continues after advertising
The government presented documents showing that Google last year had considered an agreement with telephone operators and smartphone manufacturers that would have given Gemini a prominent position on the devices alongside its search engine. This was similar to the agreements Google had signed to get a prominent position for its search engine.
Google has decided not to proceed with the Gemini plan with the telephone operators and smartphone manufacturers after the judge’s decision on search last year. He ended up closing a separate agreement with Samsung to put the Gemini on Samsung’s smartphones, showed the documents.
A Google executive witnessed that the deal with Samsung has given the smartphone manufacturer the ability to work with other AI services. Pichai witnessed that the company focused on signing agreements that were aligned with its own solution proposal, which says smartphone manufacturers should be more free to decide which Google applications install.
Executives from AI rival companies, such as OpenAi, also witnessed that Government -proposed changes in Google business would make it easier for them to build products and reach consumers.
Nicholas Turley, OpenAi’s chatgpt product chief, said in the statement that his company launched a search tool prototype called SearchGPT in July and asked Google an agreement to access his data. But Google refused OpenAi because it would “involve many complexities,” according to an email from an OpenAi executive.
“I was aware that Google might not be encouraged to offer us good condition, given the competitive nature of some of our offers,” Turley said. If Mehta requires Google to share more data with OpenAi, the company can “build a better product faster,” he added.
Dmitry Shevelenko, AI Perplexity Search Startup Business Director, testified that his company tried to close agreements with telephone companies to offer his chatbot automatically – but one of them already had a deal with Google.
This company “really likes our assistant, thinks it’s great for its users, but can’t get rid of their obligations with Google, so they can’t change the standard assistant on the device,” he said.
Google lawyers countered that the company was not holding smartphone manufacturers in excessively restrictive agreements to offer Gemini. They repeatedly stated that many AI companies were thriving and referred to data showing that chatgPT was used more widely than any other chatbot.
“I think ChatgPT is doing very well without any of the solutions of this case,” Schmidtlein said in his opening statement. “These companies are competing very well without the solutions of the plaintiffs.”
c.2025 The New York Times Company
