DOJ Seeks More Info On Google AI Strategy
The Justice Department is seeking to gain a deeper understanding of Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) strategy as it prepares to propose remedies for the company’s illegal monopoly in the search market.
According to a report, during a hearing in a federal court in Washington, DC, the DOJ requested additional discovery to examine Google’s recent business decisions, particularly those related to its AI development. The government aims to assess how Google’s AI advancements may impact competition and inform its proposed solutions.
Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled in favor of the DOJ in the first phase of the trial, has indicated a desire to expedite the remedies phase. With Mehta’s decision, the first phase of the trial ended, which focused on whether Google is liable under antitrust law. While the exact timeline remains uncertain, the parties anticipate a significantly shorter process compared to the 10-week trial that concluded last September.
The case has now advanced to the remedies phase, during which the government will propose measures to rectify the illegal conduct and reinstate fair competition in the market.
DOJ attorney David Dahlquist informed the court that the government requires additional discovery to better understand Google’s recent business developments. The trial primarily focused on agreements Google made up until the early 2020s, including its longstanding deal to provide search services on Apple products.
However, the DOJ’s investigation concluded just as Google, along with competitors like Microsoft, began rolling out new AI-powered search products. Dahlquist pointed out that even the name of Google’s AI has changed since last year’s trial, shifting from Bard to Gemini, underscoring the need for more information on Google’s latest business decisions, particularly regarding AI.
The parties involved are expected to submit a new scheduling proposal by next Friday.
As the DOJ continues its investigation, it is crucial to monitor Google’s AI developments and assess their potential implications for the competitive landscape. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the future of search technology and the broader digital economy.