A federal judge made a significant ruling last year, declaring Google as a dominant player in the internet search industry. However, during a recent hearing aimed at addressing this issue, the focus shifted towards the rapidly evolving technology of artificial intelligence.

In a U.S. District Court session in Washington last week, a Justice Department attorney contended that Google’s search monopoly could hinder transparency within the company regarding the development of its AI chatbot, Gemini. Rivals in the AI sector also noted that Google’s influence poses a challenge to their success.

On Wednesday, the first critical question was directed at Google CEO Sundar Pichai. AI topics emerged more than 20 times during a 90-minute testimony after he took the stand.

“I consider it one of the most dynamic moments in the industry,” Pichai remarked. “I’ve observed user home screens featuring seven to nine chatbot applications that they’re experimenting with and refining.”

The antitrust lawsuits of the past have essentially morphed into a debate about the future, with both the government and Google suggesting modifications to the tech giant’s business practices that could alter the trajectory of AI development.

For over two decades, Google’s search engine has dominated the online information landscape. Now, federal courts are assessing whether the Silicon Valley behemoths will lead the next phase of how users access information as consumers increasingly turn to new chatbot technologies for answers and solutions.

During the proceedings, government attorneys asserted that Google’s monopolistic search strategies could facilitate the widespread adoption of its Gemini Chatbot. They argue that the burgeoning AI sector should not allow consumers to be deprived of diverse product alternatives.

Google countered by stating that OpenAI’s rapid ascent (the AI startup powering Apple’s products) showcases the existing competition, asserting that intervention from the courts is unnecessary.

Judge Amit P. Mehta, who is overseeing the search-related cases, may reshape this fierce competition and influence technology policy through these AI discussions. Google is already a leading AI entity, with Gemini attracting over 350 million active users monthly. Any measures to curb this endeavor or support competitors will greatly impact the race.

The government has requested the court to mandate Google to divest its Chrome browser and share data with competitors, which includes search results and advertisements, along with other actions.

These government initiatives are inherently forward-looking, aiming to dismantle long-standing monopolistic practices and open the market to new challengers. As John Newman, deputy director of the Competition Bureau during the Biden administration, stated, “You don’t want to spend five years on a case that leads to no substantial action and consumes resources across multiple agencies.”

A spokesperson for Google highlighted John Schmidtlein, the company’s lead counsel, who claimed that the artificial intelligence market is “extremely competitive.” The Department of Justice has opted not to provide comments.

This year’s hearings follow a 2024 ruling that found Google illicitly maintained its monopoly by compensating companies like Apple, Mozilla, and Samsung, ensuring its search engine’s automatic prominence on web browsers and smartphones.

From the start of the hearings, the focus has remained firmly on artificial intelligence.

Professor Gregory Dullett, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Texas, was the first witness, providing Judge Mehta with an overview of AI technologies and their integration into Google’s products.

The government presented documentation indicating that last year, Google contemplated a deal with wireless carriers and smartphone manufacturers for premium placement of Gemini Prime alongside its search engine, reminiscent of a previous arrangement for prominent search engine positioning.

After the judge’s ruling last year regarding search practices, Google opted not to pursue the Gemini initiative with wireless carriers and phone manufacturers. Ultimately, separate agreements were reached with Samsung to feature Gemini on their devices, as documented.

Google executives testified that their partnership with Samsung allowed smartphone makers to collaborate with other AI services. Pichai noted that the company is focused on forming partnerships in alignment with its relief proposals, emphasizing that smartphone manufacturers should have greater autonomy in determining which Google applications to utilize.

Executives from competing AI firms, including OpenAI, shared that proposed changes to Google’s business practices would help facilitate product development and consumer access.

Nicholas Turley, head of product for OpenAI’s ChatGPT, revealed that his company developed a prototype search tool called SearchGPT in July, requesting Google to participate in a transaction for data access. However, an email from OpenAI’s team indicated that Google rejected the request due to its “complexity.”

“Given the competitive nature of our products, we recognized that Google might not be inclined to offer favorable terms,” Turley remarked, adding that if Judge Mehta compels Google to provide greater data access to OpenAI, their company could “develop better products more swiftly.”

OpenAI has also expressed interest in acquiring Google’s Chrome browser if it becomes available for sale, Turley noted.

(The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft regarding copyright infringement related to news content and AI systems, both parties have denied these allegations.)

Dmitry Shevelenko, chief business officer of AI search startup Confusion, testified that his organization sought a deal with a telecom company to source a chatbot, which was already in an arrangement with Google.

He stated, “They really appreciate our assistant and believe it enhances user experience, but we can’t modify the default assistant on our devices due to our obligations to Google.”

Google’s legal team countered that the company has not imposed overly restrictive agreements on smartphone manufacturers concerning Gemini. They reiterated that many AI firms are flourishing, citing data showing that ChatGPT surpasses all other chatbots in usage.

“I believe ChatGPT is performing well without any interventions required in this case,” Schmidtlein stated in his opening remarks. “These companies are thriving independently of the plaintiff’s proposed solutions.”