In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), a group of U.S. states, and Google concluded their final arguments in the remedies phase of a landmark antitrust case addressing Google’s search engine dominance. Following Judge Amit Mehta’s 2024 ruling that Google maintained an impermissible monopoly in search, the court is evaluating proposed measures to restore competition. TechNet filed an amicus brief opposing one of the DOJ’s proposed remedies, and a ruling is expected later this summer. 

DOJ’s Proposed Remedies

The DOJ asked the court to impose significant structural changes to Google’s business, including terminating Google’s default search agreements, divesting Chrome, and mandating data sharing with competitors. It contends these measures are essential to dismantle structures that enabled Google’s dominance and to promote competitive balance. In the device maker context, DOJ argued that Google’s contracts to make Google Search the default on many browsers and smartphones in exchange for ad revenue restricts competition.

DOJ also initially proposed that Google divest its AI investments entirely and be barred from future investments in AI companies. Ahead of the trial, DOJ withdrew that request and proposed as an alternative that Google be required to submit advance notice to the federal and state government plaintiffs before making any investment in or collaborating with companies that are working on AI. That notice would be required to include significant, confidential information and would be followed by a minimum of a 30-day pause before moving forward.

Google’s Counterarguments

Google criticized DOJ’s proposals as prioritizing the interests of competitors rather than competition and forgetting entirely the interests of consumers. Google’s attorneys highlighted privacy and cybersecurity concerns, warning that DOJ’s plans would require disclosure of sensitive user queries and Google’s proprietary data to rivals lacking comparable security standards. Moreover, Google pointed out past privacy breaches involving search query disclosures as evidence of potential risks. As Google noted during the trial, many users unveil their most private thoughts and problems in the context of searching for solutions online, and they do so because they trust that their searches will not be leaked or shared.

One of the difficulties with the DOJ’s proposals, Google argued, is that most of the details would be left up to a new “technical committee” made up of five unelected individuals—four of whom would be selected by DOJ, states suing Google, and their representatives—to decide how Google operates going forward. They would be empowered to decide if and what Google is allowed to develop, who counts as a “competitor” and what Google data they should receive, and more. They would also be allowed to access all buildings, systems, and internal code and user data at Google, be paid by Google, and be permitted to hire their own staffs and consultants (also paid by Google). Yet none of the committee members need to have any expertise in search, data privacy, marketing, or business.

Google also argued that DOJ’s causation and remedies arguments are incompatible. To argue that Google maintains a search monopoly, DOJ had to narrowly define the market to exclude AI products, yet a significant portion of the DOJ’s proposed remedies are focused on AI rather than search. Google also emphasized that the rise of OpenAI, whose ChatGPT has rapidly scaled without access to Google Search’s back-end data, demonstrates the changing market and the vibrant competition already present in AI-driven search.

Google further highlighted its evolving agreements, which allow carriers and device makers flexibility to partner with rival services, undermining the DOJ’s claim of exclusivity as anticompetitive.

The Broader Tech Industry Gives Mixed Testimony

Other tech companies offered mixed testimony during the trial, both supporting and opposing the proposed remedies. For example, rival search company DuckDuckGo testified that Google’s place as the default search engine on many platforms makes it difficult for DuckDuckGo to compete and gain a foothold in search, even though they believe consumers would prefer their privacy-centric product. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, a Google Chrome rival, testified that the DOJ’s proposed remedies were “frightening” and would “put Firefox out of business” by preventing Mozilla from making deals with Google to have Google Search as the default browser on its product.

In other testimony, witnesses from OpenAI and Yahoo testified about the competitive benefits their respective products would receive if they had access to Google’s search index, and both companies would be interested in purchasing the Chrome browser if it were put up for sale. Perplexity also said it would like to buy Chrome but argued that rather than breaking up Google, the court should simply prevent restrictive contracts that make Google the default search product. Apple testified against the DOJ’s proposal, saying that it deals with Google for default search engine placement because Apple users find Google to be the best option. Apple also testified that Google searches on the Safari browser have begun to decline for the first time ever, as more users go to AI products for questions that they might have previously asked a search engine.

TechNet Weighs In

TechNet filed an amicus curiae brief alongside Anthropic and Engine Advocacy. The brief focused on the DOJ’s proposed restrictions on Google’s investment in and collaboration with AI companies, arguing that it would be detrimental to AI startups’ ability to access the capital and technical assistance they need to succeed. Not only would the DOJ’s remedy have the potential to cut off Google’s investments that have enabled small AI startups to succeed, by its plain language the restriction could even restrict Google from participating in TechNet’s advocacy on any issue if other companies with AI products were also involved.

An Ongoing Case

The rise of AI complicates what was already an ambitious case by the DOJ. During the closing arguments, Judge Mehta hinted that the liability phase that found Google to be a monopoly may already be outdated, with the impact of AI’s rapid rise calling into question the very idea of a Google search monopoly. But while Judge Mehta expressed skepticism about Google’s proposal for focusing only on deals for default search engine placement, he also said he wasn’t sure the DOJ’s AI-focused remedies fit. Judge Mehta also said he was “uncomfortable” with the DOJ’s “technical committee” proposal, whereby he would hand off most of the remedy decisions to a committee of individuals who aren’t required to have any expertise in search, data privacy, marketing, or business, rather than having Google and the government debate the details of proposed remedies in court. Finally, Judge Mehta expressed some skepticism of a government proposal to have Google pay for a “public education” marketing campaign for its competitors, incredulously asking the government whether Google should really be required to pay for a “nine-figure marketing campaign for Bing.”

Judge Mehta must balance the DOJ’s calls for robust remedies against Google’s warnings of severe impacts on user privacy, innovation incentives, and product quality. The DOJ’s broad proposed remedies also potentially create technical implementation challenges if they are adopted. The decision, expected in August, could profoundly shape competition and innovation across digital markets, affecting consumers, businesses, and America’s broader tech ecosystem. Regardless of the ruling, the rise of AI has also introduced new issues that will likely be a significant part of any eventual appeals.