Federal prosecutors warned that Google might leverage artificial intelligence to entrench its search monopoly, demanding “strong measures” to prevent the tech giant from extending its market control into the AI era. In the latest phase of the major antitrust trial that began on Monday, government lawyer David Dahlquist argued that Google has built a system where its control of search helps improve its AI products, which then send more users back to Google search, creating a cycle that keeps competitors locked out of both markets. “Now is the time to tell Google and all other monopolists who are out there listening, and they are listening, that there are consequences when you break the antitrust laws,” Department of Justice attorney David Dahlquist told the court Monday, as the remedies phase of the landmark antitrust case against Google began, reported Reuters. The trial, which follows Judge Amit Mehta’s August 2024 ruling that Google illegally maintained a search monopoly, has evolved into a showdown over how deeply the government can intervene in tech markets—particularly as the industry rapidly shifts toward AI-powered services. The AI expansion strategy Evidence presented in court revealed that Google is employing familiar tactics to dominate the emerging AI landscape. The company has negotiated deals paying Samsung to preinstall its Gemini AI app on smartphones, with options to extend the arrangement through 2028. The Justice Department contended that this mirrors the exclusive agreements with device makers that Judge Mehta previously ruled helped Google maintain its search monopoly. The government’s case portrays a self-reinforcing cycle: Google’s search dominance improves its AI products, which in turn drive users back to its search engine. “This court’s remedy should be forward-looking and not ignore what is on the horizon,” Dahlquist emphasized, as per the report. To underscore its focus on AI competition, the DOJ called OpenAI’s product head for ChatGPT, Nick Turley, to testify—signaling the government’s concern about how search and generative AI are converging. “If Google’s conduct is not remedied, it will control much of the internet for the next decade and not just in internet search, but in new technologies like artificial intelligence,” DoJ Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater said in a statement. Remedies that reshape markets The Justice Department is pushing for interventions that would fundamentally alter Google’s business model. Their proposals include requiring Google to divest Chrome, end exclusive default search agreements, and license its search data to competitors. As a last resort, they’ve suggested Google might need to sell its Android operating system if other remedies fail. However, industry analysts question whether some of these remedies align with market realities. Neil Shah, VP for research and partner at Counterpoint Research, believes the Chrome divestiture may miss the bigger picture. “Chrome separation doesn’t impact Google much in the long run as we are moving from browser and app-centric to an Agentic world where search and content access will happen inside the agent app and browser becomes redundant property,” Shah said. “The AI agent itself becomes the search engine.” Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst and CEO of Greyhound Research, expressed similar concerns about focusing too narrowly on Chrome: “Separating Chrome from Google risks destabilizing a global platform that underpins not just web access, but AI discovery itself.” Both analysts said that more attention should be directed toward Google’s control of the Android ecosystem, where default settings and bundled services most effectively limit competition. The DOJ’s proposal for Google to license its search data to competitors faces significant practical challenges, according to experts. “Mandating Google to license its search data may sound like fair market correction, but risks cascading privacy and compliance fallout,” Gogia noted. “Google’s behavioral query logs are rich and sensitive, anonymizing them without destroying contextual utility is technically tenuous.” Shah was more direct: “DOJ’s remedy of Google sharing search results data turns its advertising-led business model as well as tech stack upside down and won’t be practically feasible.” Google’s defense: national security and innovation Google has framed the government’s proposals as threats to the US technological leadership in the global AI race with China — an argument that has gained traction among some industry observers. “We’re in a fiercely competitive global race with China for the next generation of technology leadership, and Google is at the forefront of American companies making scientific and technological breakthroughs,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post. “With new services like ChatGPT (and foreign competitors like DeepSeek) thriving, DOJ’s sweeping remedy proposals are both unnecessary and harmful,” Mulholland added in the post. Gogia acknowledged the complexity of this argument, “Google’s concerns about national security aren’t misplaced. Fragmenting Google’s ecosystem may slow down America’s cohesive AI response to China. But a strong counter opinion to this is that it is a long-overdue correction to embedded defaults that restrict platform access.” Competitors seek a middle ground As the case unfolds, emerging AI search competitors are advocating for more nuanced solutions. Perplexity, an AI-powered search engine, published a blog post arguing that “the remedy isn’t breakup,” but rather increased consumer choice. “When we think about a search product that’s 10X better than 10 blue links, we also think about being a company that works better with OEMs, carriers, and partners of all kinds,” Perplexity wrote in the blog.  “That’s because the only way we (or anyone else) can compete after all the hard work of building a superior product, is to be chosen.” The company has been asked by both the DOJ and Google to share its opinion. This approach aligns with Shah’s analysis: “Maximum DOJ would end up focusing on the exclusive agreements with OEMs and other ecosystem players to make it a somewhat level playing field where users have the choice of the agent.” The remedies trial is expected to conclude May 9, with Judge Mehta’s ruling anticipated in August. Google has already indicated it plans to appeal.