Google faces intense scrutiny over its artificial intelligence strategy as the remedies phase of its landmark search antitrust trial unfolds in Washington D.C. Central to the Department of Justice’s argument is the assertion that Google is replicating its past monopolistic behavior in search within the burgeoning AI market.
This was highlighted by revelations this week that the company pays Samsung Electronics Co. “enormous sums of money” monthly to ensure its Gemini generative AI application comes preinstalled on Samsung devices. This deal, involving Google’s advanced Gemini model, commenced just this past January, according to testimony from Google Vice President Peter Fitzgerald.
DOJ Trial Targets Google’s AI Deals
The ongoing trial phase aims to determine penalties after Judge Amit Mehta ruled last August that Google unlawfully maintained its search dominance, partly through massive payments for default placements – payments that reportedly totaled $26.3 billion across all partners in 2021, with an estimated $20 billion going to Apple alone that year.
Now, the DOJ is pushing for structural changes, including the potential forced sale of the Chrome browser and, pointedly, a ban on the type of exclusive default deals Google struck for search – explicitly extending this proposed ban to AI products.
“We’re here to restore competition to these markets,” DOJ lawyer David Dahlquist stated in court, aiming for remedies that would “allow that block of ice to thaw.” He further argued, “The antitrust laws are designed to adapt to advances in technology, the oil companies and railroads of yesterday are the internet and search engines of today.”
The government specifically flagged Google’s deals around AI tools like Gemini as a potential way to improperly extend its market power. Gemini itself is Google’s family of large language models powering its generative AI features, designed to compete with offerings from OpenAI and others; the 2.5 Pro version became widely available for free at the end of March 2025.
‘Enormous Sums’ for Samsung’s Gemini Placement
Testimony from Google VP Fitzgerald this week detailed the nature of the Samsung arrangement. Since January 2025, Google sends Samsung fixed monthly payments for each device preinstalling Gemini, supplemented by a cut of the advertising revenue generated within the AI app.
Documents presented at the trial suggested this contract, initially set for at least two years, could potentially be extended through 2028. This financial arrangement exists despite Judge Mehta’s prior finding that Google’s multi-billion dollar payments to Samsung for default search placement violated antitrust law ($8 billion reportedly paid between 2020-2023 for Search, Play Store, and Assistant defaults, according to testimony in a separate case).
Fitzgerald did note, however, that the Gemini agreement allows Samsung to install competing AI services and that Google amended its search agreement with Samsung in April 2025 to remove exclusivity requirements there.
Old Tactics in a New AI Market?
The DOJ argues deals like the Samsung Gemini agreement echo the anticompetitive conduct previously condemned in search. Underscoring this, partially redacted court documents shown Monday revealed details of a Google deal to preload Gemini onto Motorola Razr devices.
This agreement reportedly required placing the app directly on the home screen, making it, according to reporting by Courthouse News Service, “nearly identical” in structure to the search default deals Judge Mehta found illegal.
The competition for this prime mobile real estate is fierce; an internal Google presentation from September 2024, shown in court Tuesday and reported by The Information, confirmed that OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms had all approached Samsung with offers to get their chatbots onto Galaxy devices.
Fitzgerald also testified that Motorola was engaging with AI firms, “including Perplexity,” aligning with earlier reports from mid-April that Perplexity AI was securing a deal with Motorola and had held talks with Samsung. OpenAI’s product head, Nick Turley, was expected to testify Tuesday about how such exclusive deals hinder the distribution of rival AI products.
Google Defends AI Strategy Amidst Competition
Google refutes the notion that its AI deals are anticompetitive or require harsh remedies. Lead counsel John Schmidtlein labeled the DOJ’s proposals, like selling Chrome, “extreme” and “fundamentally flawed,” arguing they were “untethered from the liability findings.”
He stated the “message from the government has been loud and clear: Google should be punished.” Schmidtlein maintained Google earned its position through “hard work and ingenuity” and won its place “fair and square.”
He further argued that AI competitors “would like handouts as well even though they are competing just fine.” Google contends the DOJ’s purpose is improperly forcing consumers and manufacturers “to use rival search engines — even though rivals are demonstrably inferior to Google and consumers overwhelmingly prefer Google.” The trial continues, with Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Apple SVP Eddy Cue among the listed potential witnesses, as Judge Mehta weighs how to address Google’s established search monopoly in the face of rapidly evolving AI competition.
Source: Winbuzzer / Digpu NewsTex