Listen to this article. This audio was generated by AI.
As the Department of Justice considers how to address Google's monopoly of online search -- including a potential breakup -- it's also taking technologies such as AI into account that might give Google a way to secure an anticompetitive position as the search market evolves.
The DOJ's proposed remedy framework filed Tuesday night raised concerns about AI's effect on search, noting that any remedies addressing Google's monopoly should "carefully consider both past, present and emerging market realities" to ensure competition. District Court Judge Amit Mehta in August found Google guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly over the online search market. Remedying Google's behavior is one of the next steps in the landmark antitrust case.
They're trying to anticipate a world where AI is very much a part of search and how to create a competitive field in which Google, by virtue of its anticompetitive behavior, is able to dominate that, too.
Bill BaerVisiting fellow, Brookings Institution
The DOJ said in its remedy filing that Google's AI-summarized search results rely on websites and other content created by third parties, often leaving those entities with "little-to-no bargaining power against Google's monopoly and who cannot risk retaliation or exclusion from Google." The DOJ said Google's position and ability to feed such AI features is an "emerging barrier to competition and risks further entrenching Google's dominance." The DOJ hopes to remedy this issue by giving third parties the option to opt out of Google's AI-generated summaries.
Bill Baer, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, said he considers the filing's forward-looking approach impressive.
"They're trying to anticipate a world where AI is very much a part of search and how to create a competitive field in which Google, by virtue of its anticompetitive behavior, is able to dominate that, too," he said. "It's something that ought to be on the table."
DOJ mulls a Google breakup
The DOJ will potentially want Google to divest its search product from Google's Chrome browser, its Android devices and Google Play store, according to the filing.
"We really need to see the specifics of their proposal," Baer said. "But they are right to put divestiture, particularly of Android, on the table."
Carl Hittinger, leader of law firm BakerHostetler's antitrust and competition practice team, said if Google is made to break off its search product, the question will be whether there's a product or service to take its place in the market.
Hittinger said the court will need to proceed cautiously to ensure the right remedies are selected for Google. Remedies need to be "realistic and workable," he said.
"If you're not going to have viable options for consumers to take the place of those options, then what are they supposed to do?" Hittinger said.
In response to the filing, Google described the DOJ's outline as "radical."
"The government seems to be pursuing a sweeping agenda that will impact numerous industries and products, with significant unintended consequences for consumers, businesses and American competitiveness," according to Google's response.
The DOJ also wants Google to make data used for Google search, including data used in AI-assisted search features, available through an API to increase competition. It might consider remedies that prohibit Google from using or retaining data that cannot be shared with others. The department is also evaluating remedies that would allow Google search advertisers to receive transparent information and the ability to opt out of some Google search features.
To address search distribution, the DOJ is considering limiting or ending Google's use of contracts allowing its search engine to be preinstalled.
Baer said the DOJ's multi-faceted remedy framework is the right approach. He said without implementing multiple remedies, it's unlikely the court will effectively remove entry barriers and level the playing field.
"I thought the overall filing was terrific in terms of laying out the various kinds of options that need to be on the table and talking about perhaps the need to pick more than one item from the menu," he said. "That's the right way to open up this part of the litigation."
The DOJ means to conduct research and engage experts to ensure specific remedies included in its proposed final judgment address the harm resulting from "Google's unlawful conduct in the context of current market realities." The DOJ plans to provide the court with a refined proposed final judgment in November, followed by a revised proposed final judgment in March.
Makenzie Holland is a senior news writer covering big tech and federal regulation. Prior to joining TechTarget Editorial, she was a general assignment reporter for the Wilmington StarNews and a crime and education reporter at the Wabash Plain Dealer.
