Latest news with #JusticeDepartment
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Google's Future Awaits Judge's Ruling
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta holds in his hands the fate of Google's massive search-engine business, which last year he ruled was an illegal monopoly. But OpenAI and other competitors might be fracturing that business faster than any judge could. A key focal point of the trial dealt with how new AI players appear to have already begun to whittle away at the search engine, the primary portal to online knowledge and discovery for decades. Mehta on Friday will hear closing arguments from lawyers at the Justice Department and Google over how to improve competition in online searches, though his ruling is also expected to play an outsize role in the future of AI. The Justice Department, which brought the case against Google in 2020, has proposed forcing the sale of its Chrome browser, preventing Google from being able to pay Apple to be its default search engine and requiring it to share data with competitors. The department says the uncommonly harsh remedies are supported by a legal standard created when the U.S. government tried to break up Microsoft over 20 years ago. 'All three of the DOJ's major remedies are aimed at helping generative AI providers take share from Google,' said Paul Gallant, a policy analyst for TD Cowen. Mehta has said he expects to issue a ruling in August. Google's attorneys plan to argue that the government's proposals are overreaching, with the potential to cause disproportionate harm to the company's business. The company, which has a roughly 90% market share of online searches, has proposed a narrower set of remedies that would modify its search agreements with Apple, as well as Mozilla and Android, to allow for more competition. It has said it would appeal the judge's ruling. Google has paid Apple $20 billion a year in exchange for placement as the default search engine within its Safari web browser. The case has the potential to wipe out billions of annual profit from Apple's bottom line. Mehta is considering restricting Google from sharing revenue with Apple as part of its existing agreement, potentially changing the way Google is embedded within Safari. Analysts and legal experts say his decision could affect future agreements between Apple, Google and a host of other companies dealing with how AI options are presented within dominant platforms. The search giant is now paying Samsung and Motorola to pre-install Gemini on devices, according to court testimony. The department says this represents an effort to monopolize the next generation of internet search and should be prohibited by the court. Alphabet GOOGL -0.29%decrease; red down pointing triangle shares slid sharply this month after an Apple executive testified in federal court that Google searches in Safari had recently fallen for the first time in two decades. He also said Apple would likely offer AI options such as ChatGPT or Perplexity in Safari within the next year. Google said in a blog post that it has seen an increase in total searches coming from Apple devices and platforms. 'A formidable question that hovers over the entire proceeding is how should the judge take account of emerging developments and the technology that affect the fortunes of all of these companies,' said William Kovacic, an antitrust law professor at George Washington University and former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google parent Alphabet, testified that Google hopes to enter into a distribution agreement with Apple by the middle of this year that would enable the iPhone-maker to tap Google's own AI model and chatbot, called Gemini, in responding to user queries. Apple already offers that option with OpenAI's ChatGPT. Google last week announced the U.S. rollout of 'AI Mode,' which answers search queries in a chatbot-style conversation without the standard list of blue links. The change is the most significant overhaul of the search engine in years as Google moves to compete more directly with a host of AI upstarts. Google has been honing the capabilities of Gemini, which is the force behind AI Mode as well as other AI features embedded in many of its products. Gemini has seen its user base grow in recent months, but it still lags behind ChatGPT in popularity. Write to Katherine Blunt at and Dave Michaels at
New York Times
an hour ago
- Business
- New York Times
The Judge's Data Dilemma in the Google Search Case
Data played a starring role in the government's successful antitrust suit against Google accusing it of illegally protecting its monopoly in online search. Now, steps to force Google to unlock its data trove could figure prominently in a ruling on how to address the tech giant's dominance, antitrust experts say. On Friday, the federal judge overseeing the case, Amit P. Mehta, will hear closing arguments in federal court in Washington on what corrective measures, known as remedies, he should order to restore competition. The government's requests include forcing Google to share its search engine results and advertising data with rivals. Justice Department lawyers have repeatedly described data as 'the oxygen' for search engines. And in his ruling against Google in August, Judge Mehta recounted in detail how the company harvests vast amounts of data from user searches and web crawling, then stores and analyzes the data to rule the lucrative market for internet search. Google, he noted, collects nine times as much user search data every day as all its rivals combined. And as more data is fed into Google's software, the results that the search engine returns on everything from biology to bluejeans become more accurate and relevant to the person seeking information. Better search performance, in turn, attracts more users and more advertisers, Judge Mehta wrote. It's a flywheel that steadily enhances Google's search and acts as a barrier to competition. 'At every stage in the search process,' the judge wrote, 'user data is a critical input that directly improves quality.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Business
- Economic Times
Google, Justice Department face off in climactic showdown in search monopoly case
Google will return to federal court Friday to fend off the US Justice Department's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it's navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence that could undercut its power. ADVERTISEMENT The legal and technological threats facing Google are among the key issues that will be dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared as an illegal monopoly by US District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers will attempt to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes 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 lawyers are expected to assert only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier."Over weeks of testimony, we heard from a series of well-funded companies eager to gain access to Google's technology so they don't have to innovate themselves," Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post earlier this month. "What we didn't hear was how DOJ's extreme proposals would benefit consumers." After the day-long closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labour Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. ADVERTISEMENT While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at USD 2 trillion. ADVERTISEMENT Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine into an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and 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. ADVERTISEMENT The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and which collects more than USD 20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's 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't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. ADVERTISEMENT In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's 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 "does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship" of their personal App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department's proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realize their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. "Developers will be overcome by uncertainty" if Google is torn apart, the group argues. Buy Y Combinator, an incubator that has helped create hundreds of startups collectively worth about USD 800 billion filed documents pushing for the dramatic overhaul of Google, whose immense power has discouraged venture capitalists from investing in areas that are considered to be part of the company's "kill zone." Startups "also need to be able to get their products into the hands of users, free from restrictive dealing and self-preferencing that locks up important distribution channels. As things stand, Google has locked up the most critical distribution channels, freezing the general search and search text advertising markets into static competition for more than a decade," Y Combinator told Mehta.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Google, justice dept face off in climactic showdown in search monopoly case
Google will return to federal court Friday to fend off the US Justice Department's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it's navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence that could undercut its power. The legal and technological threats facing Google are among the key issues that will be dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared as an illegal monopoly by US District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers will attempt to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes 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 lawyers are expected to assert only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. Over weeks of testimony, we heard from a series of well-funded companies eager to gain access to Google's technology so they don't have to innovate themselves, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post earlier this month. What we didn't hear was how DOJ's extreme proposals would benefit consumers. After the day-long closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labour Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at USD 2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine into an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's 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's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than USD 20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's 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't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's 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 does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship of their personal information. The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department's proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry. Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realize their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. Developers will be overcome by uncertainty if Google is torn apart, the group argues. Buy Y Combinator, an incubator that has helped create hundreds of startups collectively worth about USD 800 billion filed documents pushing for the dramatic overhaul of Google, whose immense power has discouraged venture capitalists from investing in areas that are considered to be part of the company's kill zone. Startups also need to be able to get their products into the hands of users, free from restrictive dealing and self-preferencing that locks up important distribution channels. As things stand, Google has locked up the most critical distribution channels, freezing the general search and search text advertising markets into static competition for more than a decade, Y Combinator told Mehta. (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.)
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Editorial: Office for sale — Trump's cryptocurrency self-dealings corrupt Washington
President Donald Trump has been forthright and transparent in his desire to enrich himself with his cryptocurrency memecoin profiting off of his high public office. Trump is beyond shame, but this corrupt debasement of the Oval Office is accepted by so many who should know better, including his fellow Republicans. Unlike the hundreds of other crypto coins that have been launched in the largely unregulated crypto casino, though, this one allows attendees to in effect directly pay the president of the United States. Hundreds paid big bucks to join Trump at a dinner at his Virginia golf club, many of them flying in from overseas and explicitly telling reporters that they had paid to play, hoping to influence the president. Even factoring in fees alone, Trump's family has made more than $320 million off the coin even as it gears up its World Liberty Financial crypto project. Trump has only gotten more and more brazen as he's played chicken with our anti-corruption standards and won every time. During his first term, there was relatively widespread and bipartisan consternation over foreign officials spending lavishly at Trump's hotels and other properties. Such self-dealing, which seemed extravagant then, now appears quaint. No longer do foreign oligarchs, officials and others trying to curry favor with the man who can move global markets limit themselves to club memberships or expensive hotel rooms. No, now they just give the cash directly to Trump via an industry that Trump's own slavish officials are tasked with regulating. This would all be offensive enough had the MAGA contingent not pretended to care about corruption over the last several years, fixating on whatever morsels of ostensible evidence they could drum up to demonstrate that former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter were involved in corrupt and nefarious foreign dealings. Despite gobs of taxpayer funds going into congressional and Justice Department inquiries into this supposed corruption, there was never nearly enough evidence to remotely suggest that the Bidens were making big profits off of Joe Biden's office. The public hardly needs such detailed investigations into Trump self dealing because he's happy to just do it all out in the open. Trump seems genuinely bewildered that anyone would have a problem with him, for example, accepting a free $400 million jet from a foreign government that is slated to go to his personal foundation upon his exit from office, telling reporters that it is actually very smart to take extravagant gifts from Gulf monarchies. It's almost hard to blame Trump himself for all this, given that he's been open and upfront his entire life about the fact that he sees the world purely in transactional terms and sees everything through the lens of what he can get out of it. He's written books to this effect, built an entire public persona around the notion that either you personally profit or you're a sucker and a loser. We reserve the bulk of our scoring for all of the supposedly oversight entities that let it happen, and the craven hypocrisy from the members of the party that Trump has now fully taken over. If they continue to stand by and let Trump rake in the dough from openly corrupt dealings, they have no ground to stand on to ever again criticize supposed public corruption. ___
