Search Remedies Trial: Google Seeks Information on AI Efforts from OpenAI, Microsoft, Perplexity

Google’s search antitrust trial has entered a pivotal stage as the company seeks to defend its market position by issuing subpoenas to three major AI rivals—OpenAI, Perplexity AI, and Microsoft. These subpoenas, sent in October and disclosed on Monday through legal filings, aim to gather critical information for the remedies phase of the trial. The timing is significant, as it coincides with the conclusion of closing arguments in a separate antitrust case involving Google’s ad-tech business. By subpoenaing its competitors, Google is attempting to demonstrate to the court that the search market is no longer a monopoly, but one that is evolving due to competition from AI-powered technologies.

The subpoenas shed light on Google’s strategy to showcase the growing influence of AI in the search and advertising landscape. Google’s argument hinges on proving that emerging AI-driven search engines and tools are fundamentally altering the competitive dynamics. The company is requesting extensive information related to search distribution strategies, advertising models, and the data used by its rivals to develop AI-powered search technologies.

OpenAI, one of the most prominent players in AI, has been asked to provide data regarding ChatGPT usage, partnerships related to Microsoft’s Bing Search API, and distribution agreements. Google is also seeking board meeting minutes discussing search strategies and any advertising-related decisions. Additionally, Google wants details about the datasets used to train OpenAI’s models. Although OpenAI has agreed to some of these requests, it has raised objections to others, particularly those involving financial performance and proprietary data, citing concerns over the protection of trade secrets and the burden of complying with such demands.

Perplexity AI, a newer but rapidly growing competitor, is facing subpoenas for information on its user metrics, financial data, and content licensing agreements. Google is also requesting documents that outline Perplexity’s monetization strategies and advertising plans. Moreover, it has asked for communications between Perplexity and the plaintiffs in the case, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the Colorado Attorney General. Perplexity initially claimed it had not received the subpoena but later confirmed it would respond with objections in the coming weeks and begin producing documents early next year.

Microsoft’s subpoena centers around its agreements with OpenAI and Perplexity AI, as well as documents detailing the data used to train OpenAI’s models. Google is also seeking information about content licensing agreements and exclusive deals, particularly in relation to how Microsoft uses generative AI to enhance Bing’s search results and advertising capabilities. Microsoft has agreed to comply with most of Google’s requests but has refused to provide information on a few topics, particularly confidential agreements with other AI companies. Microsoft’s lawyers argue that their objections are based on relevance, proportionality, and the need to protect sensitive business information.

This legal maneuver underscores the growing tension between traditional search engines and AI-powered competitors. Google appears to be positioning itself as a player in a rapidly changing market rather than a monopolistic entity. Industry experts have noted that Google’s strategy is likely designed to buy time for its own AI initiatives, such as its Gemini project, to gain traction while maintaining its dominance in the traditional search space. Adam Epstein, co-CEO of adMarketplace, suggested that Google’s control over search distribution gives it a critical advantage, allowing it to continue refining its AI products while potentially outpacing rivals.

However, the road to displacing Google’s dominance will not be easy for competitors like OpenAI and Perplexity. According to Evelyn Mitchell-Wolf, a senior analyst at eMarketer, it could take years for these startups to achieve significant market share. She emphasized that while more competition is beneficial for consumers, the true impact of AI on search behavior and advertising is still in its early stages. Mitchell-Wolf also warned that Google could face significant challenges if the court forces it to sell its Chrome browser, which has been a cornerstone of its search dominance. Such a divestiture could create what she called a “nightmare scenario” for Google, potentially weakening its grip on the market.

The legal proceedings remain complex and uncertain. The remedies phase of the trial is expected to explore whether Google should be compelled to take drastic actions, such as divesting key assets like Chrome. Industry experts, including Ari Paparo, co-founder of Marketecture Media, have expressed uncertainty about how the remedies phase will unfold. Paparo noted that it is unclear whether the court will hold additional hearings, request more documents, or simply issue a ruling on potential remedies.

While the search and ad-tech antitrust trials are technically separate, their outcomes are intertwined, with the potential to reshape the digital advertising and search markets. The stakes are high, not only for Google but also for the broader tech industry, as the court’s decisions could either reinforce Google’s dominance or create new opportunities for AI-driven competitors to gain a foothold in the market. Observers will be watching closely to see how these legal battles influence the future of search, advertising, and the role of AI in both.