US vs Google: What both sides argued in a hearing to fix its search monopoly
For the past three weeks, the Justice Department and
Google
have questioned more than two dozen witnesses to try to sway a federal judge's decision over how to address the company's illegal monopoly in internet search.
#Operation Sindoor
India-Pakistan Clash Live Updates| Missiles, shelling, and attacks — here's all that's happening
Pakistani Air Force jet shot down in Pathankot by Indian Air Defence: Sources
India on high alert: What's shut, who's on leave, and state-wise emergency measures
On Friday, that hearing in the US District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to conclude. To fix the monopoly, the government has proposed aggressive measures that include forcing Google to sell its popular Chrome web browser and share proprietary data with competitors. Google has argued that small tweaks to its business practices would be more appropriate.
Both sides will offer closing arguments at the end of the month. Judge Amit P Mehta, who is presiding over the case, is expected to reach a decision by August. His ruling could have significant implications for Google, its rivals and the way that people look for information online.
Play Video
Pause
Skip Backward
Skip Forward
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
0:00
Loaded
:
0%
0:00
Stream Type
LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
1x
Playback Rate
Chapters
Chapters
Descriptions
descriptions off
, selected
Captions
captions settings
, opens captions settings dialog
captions off
, selected
Audio Track
Picture-in-Picture
Fullscreen
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text
Color
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Opaque
Semi-Transparent
Text Background
Color
Black
White
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Opaque
Semi-Transparent
Transparent
Caption Area Background
Color
Black
White
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Transparent
Semi-Transparent
Opaque
Font Size
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
200%
300%
400%
Text Edge Style
None
Raised
Depressed
Uniform
Drop shadow
Font Family
Proportional Sans-Serif
Monospace Sans-Serif
Proportional Serif
Monospace Serif
Casual
Script
Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values
Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Here's what to know about what was argued at the hearing.
What case does the hearing stem from?
Live Events
In August, Mehta ruled that Google had broken antitrust law when it paid companies like Apple, Samsung and Mozilla billions of dollars to automatically appear as the search engine in browsers and on smartphones. He also ruled that Google's monopoly allowed it to inflate the prices for some search ads, adding to its unfair advantage.
Discover the stories of your interest
Blockchain
5 Stories
Cyber-safety
7 Stories
Fintech
9 Stories
E-comm
9 Stories
ML
8 Stories
Edtech
6 Stories
Mehta convened the hearing last month to determine how to best address the search monopoly through measures called remedies. Executives from Google, rival search engines and artificial intelligence companies -- alongside experts -- testified about Google's power over the internet.
What did the government argue?
The only way to end Google's dominance in search is by taking significant action, government lawyers said at the hearing.
Lawyers argued that Google should be forced to spin off Chrome and share search results and ads with rivals, allowing them to populate their own search engines. Other search engines and some AI companies should get access to data on what Google users search for, as well as the websites they click on.
The government warned during the hearing that if Mehta didn't take action, it could propel Google into dominance of another technology, AI. Search is in upheaval as AI and chatbots, like Google's Gemini, change the way people find information on the web.
"This court's remedy should be forward looking and not ignore what's on the horizon," said David Dahlquist, the government's lead litigator. "Google is using the same strategy that they did for search and now applying it to Gemini."
Eddy Cue, an Apple executive called as a witness by Google, said that "in the past two months for the first time in over 20 years," Google search queries had declined in the company's Safari browser for the first time. He attributed the drop to the growth of AI.
What did Google argue?
Google's lawyers said the government's proposal would endanger products that consumers love and imperil privacy and security for internet browsing.
"I think it definitely will have many unintended consequences," testified
Sundar Pichai
, Google's CEO.
Sharing Google's data with its competitors would undermine the privacy of its users, the company's lawyers said. They pointed multiple times to a 2006 incident in which AOL released search data to aid academic researchers. Journalists were able to use leaked data to identify an individual based on her searches.
There's also plenty of competition in AI, they said, noting the success of OpenAI's ChatGPT and other examples.
Google's lawyers instead proposed that its contracts with web browsers and smartphone companies should offer more freedom to work with competing search and AI services. Pichai testified that Google had already started altering its contracts with other companies to align with its proposal in the case.
(The New York Times has sued OpenAI and its partner,
Microsoft
, for copyright infringement of news content related to AI systems. They have denied wrongdoing.)
What did other companies say?
During the hearing, several Google competitors, including OpenAI and the chatbot company Perplexity, said they would be open to buying Chrome if it was put up for sale. Government witnesses said access to Google's search and ad data would give AI companies an advantage as they tried to compete with Google.
What did the judge say?
When Mehta questioned witnesses throughout the hearing, he provided a window into his thinking.
At times, he pushed witnesses to say whether any rivals could compete with Google's search dominance absent the court's intervention.
Many of his questions revolved around AI and its significance, as Google battles its rivals to develop the technology that has become a major force in the tech industry.
When Pichai was on the witness stand, Mehta said he had observed the rapid development of AI since the lawsuit went to trial in the fall of 2023, signaling he was aware of how the growth of the technology had become the backdrop for the hearing.
"One of the things that has struck me, Mr Pichai, about these proceedings is, when we were together not so long ago, the consistent testimony from the witnesses was that the integration of AI and search or the impact of AI on search was years away," he said, referring to testimony during the 2023 trial. "By the time we've gotten here today, things have changed dramatically."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Mediation between two unequals not possible: Tharoor on Trump's claims
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has said that to suggest one can mediate between two unequals is not possible because there is no equivalence between terrorists and their victims, amid repeated claims by US President Donald Trump that he "helped settle" the tensions between India and Pakistan. Tharoor, currently in the US leading a multi-party delegation on Operation Sindoor, made the comments in response to a question during a conversation at the Council on Foreign Relations here Thursday. "Mediation is not a term that we are particularly willing to entertain. I'll tell you why not. The fact is that this implies, even when you say things like broker or whatever, you're implying an equivalence which simply doesn't exist," Tharoor said. He said there is no equivalence between terrorists and their victims. "There is no equivalence between a country that provides safe haven to terrorism, and a country that's a flourishing multi-party democracy that's trying to get on with its business," he said. "There is no equivalence between a state that is a status quo power that just wants to be left alone by its neighbours, where the neighbours don't agree with us, and a revisionist power that wants to upset the geopolitical arrangements that have existed for the last three-quarters of a century. There is no equivalence possible in these cases, and in these circumstances, to suggest that you can mediate between two unequals is not possible, Tharoor added. Since May 10, when Trump announced on social media that India and Pakistan had agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire after a long night of talks mediated by Washington, he has repeated his claim over a dozen times that he helped settle the tensions between India and Pakistan. He has also claimed that he told the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours that America would do a lot of trade with them if they stopped the conflict. On being asked how he would characterize the American role in the conflict, Tharoor said he is "guessing to some degree that the American role would have been first of all to keep themselves informed, conversations on both sides, and certainly my government received a number of calls at high levels from the US government, and we appreciated their concern and their interest. He said that at the same time, the US must have been making similar calls at the highest levels to the Pakistan side, and our assumption is that's where, because that's the side that needed persuading to stop this process, that may well have been where their messages really had the greatest effect. But that's guesswork on my part. I don't know what they said to the Pakistanis. Trump repeated the claim as recently as Thursday when during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, the US President said that he is very proud" that he was able to stop the conflict between nuclear powers India and Pakistan. I spoke to some very talented people on both sides, very good people on both sides and said that Washington will not do any trade deals with either if you are going to go shooting each other and whipping out nuclear weapons that may be even affect us. Because you know that nuclear dust blows across oceans very quickly, it affects us," Trump said. You know what, I got that war am I going to get credit? I'm not going to get credit for anything. They don't give me credit for anything. But nobody else could have done it. I stopped it. I was very proud of that, Trump added. About two weeks after the horrific April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir in which 26 civilians were killed, India launched Operation Sindoor targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7. India and Pakistan reached an understanding on May 10 to end the conflict after four days of intense cross-border drone and missile strikes. India has been maintaining that the understanding on cessation of hostilities with Pakistan was reached following direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump asks supreme court to halt court order over education department
The Trump administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to block a lower court ruling that reinstated nearly 1,400 Education Department employees who were dismissed under President Donald Trump's controversial plan to dismantle the agency. In an emergency appeal, the Justice Department said US District Judge Myong Joun in Boston overstepped his authority when he issued a preliminary injunction last month at the request of several Democratic-led states, school districts, and teachers' unions. The Boston-based First US Circuit Court of Appeals had already rejected the administration's request to pause the injunction while the appeals process played out. The lower court order required the government not only to reverse the mass layoffs but also to halt broader efforts to dissolve the department — one of Trump's headline campaign promises. In March, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate the Department of Education, triggering immediate backlash from opponents who called it a direct attack on public education. Critics have noted that while the Education Department does not directly operate schools, it plays a critical role in dispersing federal funds, enforcing civil rights laws such as Title IX, and supporting low-income students, students with disabilities, and higher education institutions.
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
CPI(M) calls for all-party meet on modalities of census
CPI(M) General Secretary M.A. Baby on Friday (June 6, 2025) urged the Union Government to convene an all-party meeting to address the apprehensions of several States on the possibility of losing representation in the Lok Sabha because of the delimitation expected to be held on the basis of the upcoming general Census. The first meeting of the new #CPIM Central Committee was held from June 3-5. It has issued the following communique: — CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) June 6, 2025 Mr. Baby was addressing a press conference in Delhi, at the conclusion of the first meeting of the newly elected Central Committee of the party. 'The Central government, after deliberate and inordinate delay, was finally forced to announce that it will conduct the general Census in 2027 and along with it, the caste census. Various apprehensions are being expressed, especially by the southern States about the intentions of the government, about the modalities it intends to follow and whether they will lose representation. The government should immediately convene an all party meeting and discuss these issues,' Mr. Baby said. Mr. Baby also informed that the CPI(M) would hold a week-long campaign against terrorism in June, besides sending a delegation led by him next week. The other members of the delegation include Lok Sabha members Amra Ram, K. Radhakrishnan and Su Venkatesan, and Rajya Sabha members John Brittas, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya and A.A. Rahim. Mr. Baby criticised the government's assertion that with Operation Sindoor, it had established a 'new normal' where every terror attack against India would be deemed an attack by Pakistan. He said, 'This means that India-Pak relations will now be dictated by terrorists.' This approach, he said, would only fuel jingoism, strengthen extremist forces on both sides of the border and further widen the communal divide. The Left party said it would hold programmes 'in defence of democracy' to mark 50 years of the declaration of Emergency, adding that the occasion would be used to 'expose the dubious role of the RSS during Emergency'. The decisions were taken at a meeting of the central committee of the CPI(M) held in the national capital from June 3-5.
