Google makes case for keeping Chrome browser
30 May 2025 23:15
Washington (AFP) Google on Friday urged a US judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser to weaken its dominance in online search.Rival attorneys made their final arguments before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering "remedies" to impose after making a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search.US government attorneys have called on Mehta to order Google divest itself of Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the internet.They also want Google barred from agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, which was the focus of the suit against the Silicon Valley internet giant.Three weeks of testimony ended early in May, with Friday devoted to rival sides parsing points of law and making their arguments before Mehta in a courtroom in Washington.John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, told Mehta that there was no evidence presented showing people would have opted for a different search engine if no exclusivity deals had been in place.Schmidtlein noted that Verizon installed Chrome on smartphones even though the US telecom titan owned Yahoo! search engine and was not bound by a contract with Google.Of the 100 or so witnesses heard at trial, not one said "if I had more flexibility, I would have installed Bing" search engine from Microsoft, the Google attorney told the judge.
'More flexibility' Department of Justice (DoJ) attorney David Dahlquist countered that Apple, which was paid billions of dollars to make Chrome the default browser on iPhones, "repeatedly asked for more flexibility" but was denied by Google.Google contends that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system."Forcing the sale of Chrome or banning default agreements wouldn't foster competition," said Cato Institute senior fellow in technology policy Jennifer Huddleston."It would hobble innovation, hurt smaller players, and leave users with worse products."The potential of Chrome being weakened or spun off comes as rivals such as Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence (AI) to work fetching information from the internet in response to user queries.The online search antitrust suit was filed against Google some five years ago, before ChatGPT made its debut, triggering AI fervor.Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be a leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings.
Kneecap Google? Testimony at trial included Apple vice president of services Eddy Cue revealing that Google's search traffic on Apple devices declined in April for the first time in over two decades.Cue testified that Google was losing ground to AI alternatives like ChatGPT and Perplexity.Mehta pressed rival attorneys regarding the potential for Google to share data as proposed by the DoJ in its recommended remedies."We're not looking to kneecap Google," DoJ attorney Adam Severt told the judge."But, we are looking to make sure someone can compete with Google."Schmidtlein contended that the data Google is being asked to share contains much more than just information about people's online searches, saying it would be tantamount to handing over the fruit of investments made over the course of decades."There are countless algorithms that Google engineers have invented that have nothing to do with click and query data," Schmidtlein said.
"Their remedy says we want to be on par with all of your ingenuity, and, respectfully your honor, that is not proportional to the conduct of this case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Web Release
an hour ago
- Web Release
M2M: The NEW Search Mantra
Marketers have spent the past decade obsessing over Google rankings and social algorithms, and yes, those things have been important in how brands tell their story, find customers, and build loyalty. Here is the gamechanger. You are not just marketing to humans anymore. For the entirety of your lifetime, you have only seen people sell to humans (B2C) or to businesses run by humans (B2B). Artificial Intelligence is creating new rules of marketing. AI is not a passing tsunami. It is a permanent tectonic shift in the way we do business. AI is the new front door to your business for millions of consumers. Google's recently rolled out two new features that are changing how search works: AI Mode and AI Overviews. AI Overviews are those AI-generated summaries that appear at the top of search results. About 30% of searches now trigger these, and they're particularly common for longer questions. Instead of clicking through to websites, people are getting their answers directly from Google. AI Mode is even more dramatic – it's a separate tab that turns search into a conversation. Instead of the usual list of blue links, you get a ChatGPT-style interface that can handle complex questions and follow-ups. You either get mentioned in the AI response, or you're invisible. According to Sharad Agarwal, CEO of Cyber Gear, 'You're not just competing for attention; you're competing for algorithmic favor. Your content needs to be optimized for engagement metrics that train prediction engines, not just humans.' AI platforms and AI agents, the digital assistants that browse and actually do things powered by models like GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.5 Pro are increasingly becoming the gatekeepers between your business and potential customers. AI agents are helping consumers all over the world find and interact with brands in new ways. AI agents don't have eyeballs and brains and hearts. They have parsers and models and system prompts. When an AI agent visits your site, it needs information. It's looking for clean, accessible, structured data it can easily digest and present back to users. It's looking for clear, organized content that they can gobble up and synthesize back to that human user. The visual bells and whistles will be completely wasted on an AI. These agents scrape, summarize, and synthesize the web to guide users to decisions. If your product information, docs, and CTAs aren't structured, visible, and machine-readable, you'll get leapfrogged by a competitor that is. Become AI-visible. Now. Contact Cyber Gear at to be found!
Gulf Today
19 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Germany plans to tax Google, Facebook
Germany's Culture Ministry is planning to bring a law to tax the American online giants like Alphabet of Google and Meta of Facebook. The rate of taxation is to be 10 per cent. The grounds on which taxation is to be imposed are interesting and even new. German Culture Minister Wolfram Weimer told the magazine, Stern, 'These corporations do billions in business in Germany with extremely high profit margins and benefit enormously from the country's media and cultural output as well as its infrastructure – but they pay hardly any taxes, invest too little, and give far too little back to the country.' There is more than an element of truth in Weimer's statement. Google and Facebook thrive much from the media content that populates their platforms, which is one of the reasons that millions of Net users throng them, to get the news in a jiffy as it were. Both Google and Facebook do not create an iota of their own content. They thrive on what they take from others, either directly or through their own users. Australia overcame the problem by giving in to the demand of newspapers and other old media, that Google should pay them for using their content. Weimer is stating the fact that the online platforms are using cultural output of the country – whether it be music, films, art – and they do not do anything to sustain the cultural events. Similarly, the Internet penetration in the country and the infrastructure that sustains it is what enables millions of Germans to use Google and Facebook, and it is on the large number of users that these online companies earn their revenues. It is but reasonable that the online companies should be made to pay taxes of some kind. Weimer has even suggested voluntary contribution on the part of Google and Facebook. But this may be impracticable. No company will be willing to make voluntary contribution in lieu of taxes. The American online platforms have an advantage over national players because they have worldwide footprint because of the investments they made in the search engines reaching the ends of the globe as it were. They are indeed reaping benefits from it. But do they have an obligation to the regions and countries in which they operate? Google and Facebook can argue that they have built the cyber bridges to connect the different places, and they are allowing a free use of it. The owners of these platforms would not let these sites remain free if they were not earning enough revenue in billions of dollars. If they did not make money, they would have imposed some user-charges from the thousands of millions who use them around the globe. They can say that they have boosted other businesses through the space they have opened up for other businesses. These arguments do not however discredit the demand for tax payments from national governments. That these online payers use national airwaves is a fact. It can be argued that it is the telecom companies in these countries which have the right to charge these companies. But the search engines with enormous Cloud or memory power which sustain these platforms do cost enough money, but the revenue generated by advertisers outstrips the investment and costs of maintenance. National governments have a legitimate right to demand tax from the online platforms because they operate within the sovereign territory of a country. Facebook and the Google do not have the solidity of an iPhone, but they are at the same time cyber-products. They can be treated as taxable products or services. The rate of taxation should remain flexible enough so that the thriving business of connecting people is not affected or dampened.
The National
a day ago
- The National
Google antitrust case: AI takes centre stage in closing arguments
During closing arguments in the penalty portion of the Google antitrust trial on Friday, the judge asked a question about the fast-moving tech world that will likely give pause to legal and business experts. Federal Judge Amit Mehta, who last year found Alphabet-owned Google liable for maintaining a monopoly and exploiting its search sector dominance, wanted to know how search will evolve as he decides the "remedies", or punishment, for Google. 'Does the government believe there's a market for a new search engine to emerge as we think of it today, even with the remedies in place?' he said, interrupting Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer David Dahlquist's closing arguments. Mr Mehta was referring to artificial intelligence. He implied that as he decides how to correct Google's monopoly, he needs to consider how quickly the tech landscape is shifting. The DOJ's antitrust case against Google is testing the limits of capitalism, profit and competition. It comes as artificial intelligence threatens to upend the internet search business models that allowed Google to dominate for decades. Almost all witnesses who spoke at the remedy portion of the trial seemed to acknowledge the speed of change in the tech world. The potency, promise and problems of AI in the context of existing business models surfaced several weeks ago when Apple executive Eddy Cue made comments from the witness box that briefly sent Google's stock careening. Mr Cue was responding to a question about user habits and the effect that AI is starting to have on search engine companies like Google. Eventually, his comments segued into a reflection of how technology businesses often struggle to adjust. 'People still are going to need toothpaste 20 years from now, 40 years from now. You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now. As crazy as that sounds,' Mr Cue, the senior vice president of services at Apple, told a lawyer representing Alphabet, owner of Google. 'You have to earn it. You have to develop,' he added, explaining that Apple's metrics showed that for the first time ever, overall searches done through Google seemed to have made a slight dip. Those comments reverberated throughout tech and legal communities, with some wondering if a remedy sought by the DOJ might be rendered moot by AI. How people search is changing, as AI swallows up website content and siphons off traffic. Mr Mehta last month sided with the DOJ and ruled that Google's search dominance harmed consumers with less choice. The Justice Department wants Mr Mehta to enact far-reaching penalties that would serve as a warning at other companies. In court on Friday, Mr Dahlquist, the government lawyer, reiterated the DOJ's desire that Google be prohibited from entering into default search agreements with hardware and device makers. He also pushed for strong requirements for Google to share search data and analytics with competitors, Perhaps most consequentially, he said Mr Mehta should require that Google divest Chrome, one of the world's most popular web browsers. 'We're here to make sure this cause and the remedies we propose are able to pry open the competition of this market,' Mr Dahlquist argued. 'We understood the assignment, but rather than provide this court with remedies to promote competition, Google provided milquetoast remedies that maintain status quo,' he continued, adding that Google was acting in bad faith to try to maintain its monopoly. 'Despite Google's efforts to avoid facts, those facts, as they've discovered, are stubborn things,' he added, taking a shot at the one of the world's most powerful tech companies and its phalanx of lawyers, sitting nearby. Google's lawyer, John Schmidtlein, didn't mince words in his response. 'Look at how incredibly invasive and broad they are,' he said, referring to the DOJ's remedies that Google believes 'lack causal connection' to its original motives for bringing the company to court. 'What's the amount of data that a company might need to be able to compete?' he rhetorically asked, criticising one of the DOJ's proposed remedies that Google share search data with potential competitors. Mr Mehta pushed back, saying that ample witnesses told the court that data would help increase their ability to compete, adding that it would be a 'difficult exercise' to try to address Google's criticism of the search data remedy proposal. He also asked the DOJ if AI platforms ChatGPT or Perplexity might be eligible to receive data. 'Not today, but it could eventually,' a DOJ lawyer responded. 'They eventually plan to compete with search companies and search indexes.' Just before the court broke for lunch on Friday, a senior Justice Department official told reporters that the DOJ was pleased with how the process was unfolding, even amid all the scrutiny from Google. 'Look this is a market that's been frozen in place for the better part of two decades," the official said. 'It's going to take a long time to restore competition in the search market.' That senior official also spoke to how the DOJ was trying to factor in fast-changing tech developments going forward as well as the current industry landscape. 'We don't know in the year 2035 what that's going to look like, the judge doesn't know and frankly not even Google knows,' the official explained, pivoting to issue of search data. 'So the game is, how, from a remedial standpoint how do we ensure effective remedies and that's very much about access to search data today and going forward.' Google's own proposed remedies are far lighter than those sought by the DOJ, including a solution that would give users the ability to change their default search provider at least every 12 months. The tech giant has also sought to maintain its ability to have contracts with device manufacturers. 'Browser companies like Apple and Mozilla should continue to have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users,' Google said. In late April, Google's chief executive Sundar Pichai made similar arguments to the court, calling proposed remedies 'too broad', and suggesting that fast-pace AI developments would blunt the DOJ's proposals. 'It would be trivial to reverse engineer and effectively build Google search from the outside,' Mr Pichai added. Closing arguments were expected to last throughout the day before Mr Mehta deliberates on a potential remedy.
