At this time, Google is trying to distinguish itself from AI upstarts. “Generative AI companies are not trying to out-Google Google,” said Schmidtlein. Google’s team argues that its actions did not harm AI products such as ChatGPT or Perplexity and, at any rate they are not on the search market, as defined by the Court.
Mehta speculated about the future of searching, suggesting that we may need to rethink the definition of a general search engine in 2025. He said.
A solution to the Chromium Problem
Mehta expressed skepticism at times in the case about the divestment from Chrome. Dahlquist reminded the court during closing arguments of the close relationship between browsers and search, pointing out that 35 percent Google’s search volume is derived from Chrome.
Mehta seems to be more open-minded about a Chrome split now than before, possibly because the effects of other remedies have become so murky. He called the Chrome divestment “less speculative” “more elegant” rather than the data and place remedies. Google claimed again, as it did throughout the remedy phase that forcing it give up Chrome was not supported by the law, and that Chrome’s dominant position is the result of innovation.
Aurich Lawson
Chromium could be a sticking issue, even if Mehta is inclined to order this remedy. The judge does not seem convinced that the alleged buyers, a group that includes what appears to be almost every major tech company, have the expertise and scale needed to maintain Chromium. This open-source project is the foundation for many other browsers. Its continued smooth operation is critical to the internet.
Chromium will be a part of Chrome if Google decides to give it up, but what happens to the people who maintain it if Google does? The DOJ claims that employees are often brought along with acquisitions, but this is not certain. There was some discussion about ensuring that a buyer would commit to hiring employees to maintain Chromium. The DOJ says that Google could be ordered by the court to provide financial incentives in order to fill critical roles, but this sounds messy.
Chrome’s sale is more likely than before, but it’s still not certain. Mehta will have to consider the facts after the final arguments of each side before deciding Google’s fate. Google’s fate will not change immediately, but it is expected to be decided in August. Google has already confirmed that it will appeal this case in the hope of having the original ruling overturned. This case could take years to reach its final conclusion.
