Mehta and Schmidtlein are still arguing about what kind of hypothetical world would have existed without Google’s exclusionary deals, and how drastic a market intervention that would justify. Google, you may remember, is pushing hard to focus purely on ending the exclusivity requirements of its deals while scrapping other proposals like data-sharing with other search engines — but Mehta expresses concerns that this approach “sells the remedies portion of this short.”
Adi Robertson

Senior Editor, Tech & Policy
Senior Editor, Tech & Policy
More From Adi Robertson
Schmidtlein and Mehta are going back and forth over how much Google’s monopolistic conduct — particularly its exclusionary deals with companies like Apple — let it gather data that gave it an unfair leg up over other competitors, and whether without that conduct, other search engines would have become meaningful competitors. “We had witness after witness come in and say data helps improve search quality,” Mehta notes.
Schmidtlein counters that “there was no evidence that if Google was entering into non-exclusive agreements,” Apple and others would have actually wanted to cut deals with other search engines, or that those engines would have gathered much more data. “What is the alternate configuration of the device and what would that have done in terms of access to search queries?”
Google attorney John Schmidtlein is rebutting the government’s case — calling the proposed remedies “invasive and broad and market reengineering.”
Judge Amit Mehta just wrapped up a long line of questioning about how generative AI should play into the search trial. “We spent a lot of time in this remedies phase talking about AI,” Mehta began. “There’s an argument to be made perhaps that all that is not relevant because it’s not a market that was discussed during the liability phase.” Mehta asked Dahlquist to defend why a tool like Gemini should be considered part of the overall search market, not something separate and new. Dahlquist, in turn, emphasized that AI “is a new search access point. That is a gateway to search.”
DOJ attorney David Dahlquist is laying out the governments’ case for changes that would help “pry open the market to competition” in search. He’s accused Google of providing “milquetoast remedies that it knows will maintain the status quo,” instead mainly arguing in preparation for its appeal.
Closing arguments are starting in US v. Google, the antitrust trial that could determine whether Google is forced to sell its Chrome browser and dramatically change its search business. We’re not in court today, but we’re listening on a dial-in line for this final stage of the trial.
Bluesky reminded me that John Carpenter’s Escape from New York has a deleted ten-minute opening sequence, and while I think he made the right choice cutting it, it’s a pretty fun short heist film that barely even requires having seen the film.
Do you mourn the old world dying? Will you celebrate the new world’s struggle to be born? Write (or, in a few months, read) about it.



