Google is trying to shape the next phase of a major US antitrust case before the court decides what penalties the company should face. Its latest proposal focuses partly on Gemini, the company’s generative AI assistant, and on whether Google can use the same distribution muscle that helped make its search engine a default part of daily life.
In a court filing on Friday, Google offered restrictions that would last for three years. The company said it would not require device manufacturers, browser partners, or wireless carrier licensees to distribute Gemini to their US users. It also proposed giving those partners more room to decide how default search is set for users.
What Google Is Offering
The central promise in Google’s proposal is about forced distribution. Under the restrictions it suggested, Google would not be able to make Gemini promotion a condition for partners that want to distribute search, Chrome, or the Google Play app store.
That does not mean Gemini would disappear from partner deals. The source article makes clear that Google could still reach agreements to promote Gemini. For example, nothing in the proposal would stop Google from paying Samsung to promote Gemini across its devices.
The difference is in the leverage. Google says it would not require partners to promote Gemini in order to gain access to other Google products. It also would not block those partners from working with rival AI companies like OpenAI.
The proposal also touches search defaults. Google would allow more flexibility for partners, while still preserving some room for Google to remain the default search provider in certain cases. The source article notes that Google could, for instance, secure default search status on some Samsung phone models in the US while temporarily suspending a requirement that all of them do so.
Why Gemini Matters In A Search Case
This case began with search, but AI now sits close to the center of the remedy debate. ChatGPT, Gemini, and similar chatbots have become possible competitors to traditional search engines. The Justice Department and several state attorneys general involved in the case want to prevent Google from carrying its search dominance into this newer market.
That concern is straightforward. If people begin using AI chatbots as substitutes for search engines, distribution will matter. Being preloaded, promoted, or set as a default can shape what users see first and what they keep using.
Google’s attorneys addressed that point directly in the court papers. They said the proposal included “specific provisions addressing generative artificial intelligence chatbot products, in order to allay any concern that Google could employ exclusive distribution agreements to obtain preload of its Gemini Assistant chatbot.” They also wrote: “These provisions address the potential for generative artificial intelligence chatbots to become substitutes for general search engines.”
That language shows why the Gemini remedy is not a side issue. It is part of a larger fight over whether the next interface for finding information will be shaped by open competition or by the same default arrangements that defined search.
Where Google And The Government Still Disagree
Google’s filing responds to a broader proposal from the US Justice Department. Last month, the government called for Google to loosen its grip over partners, share more data with competitors, and divest its Chrome browser business.
Google rejected those larger remedies on Friday. It opposed selling off any part of its business and refused the idea of turning over more information to rivals. Its own plan is narrower and shorter than what the government is seeking.
The duration gap is especially large. Google wants restrictions to end after three years. The government has asked Judge Amit Mehta to impose restrictions for a decade.
Google argues that a long and intrusive remedy would be a poor fit for a market changing quickly because of artificial intelligence. Its attorneys wrote: “The pace of innovation in search has been extraordinary and there is every reason to believe that will continue as developments in artificial intelligence rapidly change online computing products and services.” They added: “Regulating a fast-changing industry like search with an invasive decree like the one proposed by Plaintiffs would harm competition, innovation, and consumers.”
The government’s view is different. According to the source article, it has argued that exclusivity requirements and deals tying Google search promotion to other Google services have been central to the company’s power.
The Ruling That Set Up The Remedy Fight
The remedy phase follows a ruling this past August by US district judge Amit Mehta in Washington, DC. Mehta found that Google violated federal antitrust laws through deals that made it the default search provider on iOS and other software, often in exchange for sharing ad revenue with partners.
Mehta found that those default arrangements helped Google gain and retain users. He concluded that they gave the company monopolies in both search and search ads. In his ruling, he wrote that Google was able to increase ad prices without constraint, fueling “dramatic revenue growth” and “remarkably stable operating profits.”
The next question is what penalties should follow. Mehta has scheduled hearings starting in April and is expected to release his decision by next August.
Even that decision may not be the final word. Appeals are expected after the ruling, and any curbs on Google could take years to go into effect. That timeline has helped keep investors optimistic about Google and Alphabet. Shares of the conglomerate have gained over 37 percent in 2024, putting the company on pace for its eighth-best annual surge since going public 20 years ago.
What Comes Next For AI Search Distribution
The upcoming hearings will examine how far remedies should go and how they should apply to a market that now includes AI search companies. In the run-up to hearings beginning in April, Google and the Justice Department have sought records and testimony from AI search companies, including OpenAI and Perplexity.
The source article also notes disagreement over whether remedies can meaningfully change the search market. Last month, some former Google executives told WIRED that there is little Mehta could order that would significantly shift a market where Google has 90 percent global market share, according to analytics company Statcounter. Those executives argued that competitors need to innovate to catch up.
Some Google search competitors see it differently. They say remedies could create conditions that give other search engines a better chance to win users.
That is the practical stakes of the Gemini proposal. Google and the government appear to share some ground on limiting AI distribution restrictions, but they remain far apart on scope, duration, Chrome, and data sharing. If the court accepts limits on how Gemini can be promoted through partner arrangements, the assistant’s path into American life may look different from the one Google search followed.