Judge Weighs Softer Remedies in Google Antitrust Trial

WASHINGTON: In the ongoing Google antitrust trial, a federal judge signaled on Friday that he may opt for less aggressive measures to address Alphabet’s dominant position in online search, diverging from the decade-long enforcement plan proposed by U.S. antitrust officials.

Presiding over the trial, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard closing arguments on potential remedies to counter Google’s monopoly in online search and advertising. The Department of Justice (DOJ), along with several states, has proposed compelling Google to share its search data and cease multi-billion-dollar payments to companies like Apple to secure its default status on mobile devices.

Judge Mehta, however, floated a more moderate approach—suggesting limited data sharing and ending default payments only if other steps fail to enhance competition. He also raised concerns about the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and how it might shift the search engine landscape, hinting that the next big rival may not be a traditional search company at all.

“The next alternative to Google in Apple’s Safari might not be Bing or DuckDuckGo,” the judge noted. “It could be one of these AI firms that go beyond delivering just 10 blue links.”

The Google antitrust trial, which started in April, has already impacted the company’s share value by revealing Apple’s internal considerations to integrate AI-powered search tools. Judge Mehta is expected to issue a ruling by August.

AI’s Role in Search Market Could Shift the Legal Landscape

Antitrust officials argue that Google’s search monopoly gives it an unfair edge in developing AI tools like Gemini and, conversely, benefits its core search business. DOJ attorneys pushed for robust remedies that would apply not just to today’s search engine competitors but also emerging AI firms.

OpenAI’s product lead Nick Turley testified that ChatGPT’s ability to respond accurately to most search queries is still years away. He said access to Google’s search data could greatly improve the platform’s capabilities. Turley also expressed interest in acquiring Google’s Chrome browser if divestment becomes necessary.

However, Judge Mehta questioned whether AI companies like OpenAI or Perplexity truly belong in the category of search engine competitors targeted by the case. “It seems to me you now want to kind of bring this other technology into the definition of general search engine markets that I’m not sure quite fits,” he told DOJ attorney Adam Severt.

Severt countered that although the case initially focused on past market dynamics, any imposed remedies must look toward future competition trends, particularly involving AI.

Google’s legal team, represented by John Schmidtlein, pushed back strongly on the notion of opening its data to rivals. He emphasized that Google has already ended exclusive agreements with smartphone makers like Samsung, allowing them to preinstall other search or AI applications.

Schmidtlein argued that forcing Google to share its technology with successful AI players like OpenAI would be unfair. “Coming to Google and asking for a handout when they are the market leader seems completely disproportionate to what this case is about,” he said.

As AI increasingly reshapes how users interact with search engines, the outcome of this trial could set major precedents for both Big Tech and emerging competitors. With a final decision due this summer, the tech industry is closely watching how Judge Mehta will navigate the evolving intersection of antitrust enforcement and AI innovation.