Adi Robertson

Dahlquist makes the case for banning Google from offering payments for default placement on platforms, singling out its “astronomical” revenue-sharing deal with Apple. “If we continue to let Google pay for distribution, it will continue to win every contract,” he said. “Nobody can pay as much as Google.” He extends this to how Google is handling Gemini default placement.

Lunch now concluded, the DOJ’s Dahlquist is discussing the “monopoly flywheel” that keeps Google dominant, particularly the deals that have given Google default placement on places like Safari. Google has, as Mehta pointed out, offered some concessions here. “Their remedy as I understand it is, drop the word ‘exclusivity” in these deals,” Dahlquist says, and the DOJ agrees with that. But he says Google “doesn’t go nearly far enough” in including Gemini in its proposals.

We’ll be back in 45 minutes for more.

Or more specifically, the lack of a detailed plan from the government about how to preserve it. “How much detail do I need to put on paper?” Mehta asks DOJ attorney Adam Severt. Right now, he says, he’s got “zero.” The DOJ is aiming for a committee that could decide, which Google strenuously objects to. Mehta runs through a series of steps the committee might have to take and asks how long it would require. A “couple of weeks to month to set up the experiment,” and then “a day or two to run the experiment,” Severt says.

Schmidtlein is tearing into the government for not hammering out how to handle sensitive data before and during this hearing, and instead trying to kick it down the road for a decision later. “There’s an extraordinary amount of user data here,” and everyone “admits that it implicates privacy,” he says. Google previously argued that revealing search query data would undermine user trust, and he reiterates that search queries can reveal detail about individual people even if you try to remove personal identifying information. “We have a rough idea of a standard of privacy, but no idea about how to solve it,” he says. “It’s not even begun to be resolved.”

Schmidtlein is coming back, starting where the government left off, with search data syndication and who might get access to it — which he emphatically says shouldn’t include AI companies. “It could not be more clear, they are not trying to out-Google Google. They’re going about it in a different way. They are not a search engine,” he says. “The only person who would qualify right now under their definition is Microsoft” with Bing.

Judge Mehta is zeroing in on the possibility Google could only share those long-tail queries. The plaintiffs say the approach might make sense, but that it’s not always obvious how to define a long-tail query. Mehta objects to that, saying it seems like something competitors should figure out. “They don’t have access to the same data ... that’s the problem,” he says — not that they can’t figure out what they are.

Mehta has been pushing on ways Google could share its search data without including significant amounts of user data or kneecapping Google and still give rival search engines enough to improve their products. He’s pressing the government on whether witnesses really focused on comprehensive user data, or if they were more interested in Google’s index. He cites an amicus brief from Brave, which suggested limiting the shared data to unusual and hard-to-get “long-tail” results that can supercharge search quality. Also, how often should Google have to provide fresh results, and how much should it cost competitors to access them? “We’re trying to kickstart competitors, we’re not trying on Day 1 to put them on equal footing with Google,” he says.

“I understand this is now forward-looking, but I don’t know that” there’s an argument that would “allow the court morphing the market” this way, he says. “What case can you look to that has that kind of quality to it that can address that kind of emerging market and put it in this box of qualified competitor?” Judges’ questions don’t always indicate how they’ll rule, but that might bode ill for some of the companies Google is most worried about — generative AI providers — getting access to valuable data.

Mehta asks the question to the government. “I don’t think they’re interested in competing as a search engine qua search engine,” he says, elaborating. They “want to have better grounding in search” to have the best model in the world; is that sufficiently related? “It feels like to me the definition ought to be changed” of a general search engine if so, he says. The government disagrees, saying AI companies are clearly aiming to compete in the same areas. Mehta points out a contradiction: the government wanted to exclude a bunch of other search-engine-like services to establish Google had no meaningful search competitors during the liability trial, and now it wants to add new ones during remedies. “I’m not sure it quite fits,” Mehta says.