DOJ Warns of AI Power Used to Cement Dominance

The U.S. government is turning its antitrust spotlight on Alphabet’s Google once again—this time, over fears that its artificial intelligence strategies could bolster its search monopoly.

Opening statements at the high-stakes trial highlighted concerns over Google’s approach to integrating AI in its services. Prosecutors argue that new products like Gemini AI are tools not just of innovation but of market control, positioning the tech giant to maintain its overwhelming lead in online search.

Chrome, AI, and the Call for Remedies

To mitigate Google’s alleged anticompetitive behavior, the DOJ seeks court orders that may include:

• Forcing Google to divest its Chrome browser
• Unwinding its default search agreements
• Mandating non-exclusive deals with device makers

Prosecutors likened the case to historical antitrust decisions involving AT&T and Standard Oil, calling for modern regulatory tools that anticipate the future role of AI in search.

AI Integration: A Digital Trojan Horse?

David Dahlquist, representing the DOJ, emphasized that Google’s investments in AI—far from neutral—might be reinforcing its control. An internal agreement disclosed during trial revealed a deal between Google and Samsung to preload the Gemini app on Android devices. The monthly payments, while undisclosed, were described as significantly high.

The Gemini app, the DOJ suggests, is yet another funnel directing users into Google’s search ecosystem. As such, it should fall under the antitrust scope of the case.

Google’s Defense and Industry Implications

Google disagrees with the DOJ’s framing. The company argues its AI efforts are unrelated to traditional search and any disruption to current business practices would hurt consumers. Google further warns that eliminating its revenue-sharing deals could threaten companies like Mozilla, which depend on such funding.

Google also notes that the plaintiffs’ approach could stunt AI innovation in the U.S., calling the proposed breakup “misguided” and pledging to challenge any unfavorable verdict through appeals.