WASHINGTON (AP) 鈥� The fate and fortunes of one of the world鈥檚 most powerful tech companies now sit in the hands of a U.S. judge wrestling with whether to impose far-reaching changes upon Google in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard closing arguments Friday from Justice Department lawyers who argued that a radical shake-up is needed to promote a free and fair market. Their proposed remedies include 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.
Google鈥檚 legal team argued that only minor concessions are needed and urged Mehta not to unduly punish the company with a harsh ruling that could squelch future innovations. Google also argued that upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already is reshaping the search landscape, as conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice鈥檚 four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier.
It was an argument that Mehta appeared to give serious consideration as he marveled at the speed at which the AI industry was growing. He also indicated he was still undecided on how much AI鈥檚 potential to shake up the search market should be incorporated in his forthcoming ruling. 鈥淭his is what I鈥檝e been struggling with,鈥� Mehta said.
Mehta spoke frequently at Friday鈥檚 hearing, often asking probing and pointed questions to lawyers for both sides, while hinting that he was seeking a middle ground between the two camps鈥� proposed remedies.
鈥淲e鈥檙e not looking to kneecap Google,鈥� the judge said, adding that the goal was to 鈥渒ickstart鈥� competitors鈥� ability to challenge the search giant鈥檚 dominance.
Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can鈥檛 take until the judge orders a remedy.
Google鈥檚 attorney John Schmidtlein asked Mehta to put a 60-day delay on implementing any proposed changes, which Justice prosecutor David Dahlquist immediately objected to.
鈥淲e believe the market鈥檚 waited long enough,鈥� Dahlquist said.
While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry鈥檚 future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google.
The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won鈥檛 rein in Google鈥檚 power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that鈥檚 the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion.
Google has already nto an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet鈥檚 main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity.
The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale.
The debate over Google鈥檚 fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups.
Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department鈥檚 proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn鈥檛 compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google.
In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department鈥檚 proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company鈥檚 business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines 鈥渄oes not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship鈥� of their personal information.
Mehta said Friday that compared to some of the Justice Department's other proposals, there was 鈥渓ess speculation鈥� about what might happen in the broader market if Google were forced to divest of Chrome. Schmidtlein said that was untrue, and such a ruling would be a wild overreach.
鈥淚 think that would be inequitable in the extreme,鈥� he said.
Dahlquist mocked some of the arguments against divesting Chrome.
鈥淕oogle thinks it鈥檚 the only one who can invest things,鈥� he said.
Michael Liedtke And Alan Suderman, The Associated Press
