What Google antitrust сase means for AI future?

A year after a federal district court ruled that Google had illegally maintained its monopoly over online search, the focus has shifted from guilt to remedy. This week, the court is expected to decide how to curb the company’s market power — a decision that could shape not only Google’s future, but the trajectory of artificial intelligence itself.

In a guest essay for The New York Times, Tim Wu, contributing Opinion writer and a law professor at Columbia, argues that while the case on its face concerned Google’s billion-dollar payments to Apple, Samsung and others to secure its dominance in search, the real stakes are far broader. The remedy could determine whether smaller, more innovative firms — possibly even those outside Silicon Valley — will have a chance to compete in the emerging A.I. economy.

The essay notes that Google’s anticompetitive tactics have already been curbed under the watchful eye of regulators.

For instance, instead of partnering with Google’s Gemini chatbot, Apple selected OpenAI’s ChatGPT for iPhone integration, reflecting what the writer describes as a new “mind-set of openness” in a world where Google’s payments are no longer assumed. Similarly, start-ups like Perplexity have benefited from a market less distorted by Google’s financial muscle.

Still, the court’s remedy could go much further. One possibility is to require Google to sell its Chrome browser, which commands 67 percent of the global market and directs vast amounts of data and traffic toward Google products. Another option is to compel Google to license its click-and-query data — the raw fuel that powers A.I. models — to its rivals, potentially giving smaller players a fighting chance.

The piece places the Google case in historical context, comparing it to antitrust actions that reshaped U.S. technology in the past. The 1956 settlement with AT&T opened space for the semiconductor industry, while the 1990s case against Microsoft paved the way for today’s internet platforms.

Whether the Google remedy sparks a similar wave of innovation may ultimately be measured not in court filings but in whether employees at established firms leave to build the next generation of companies.

As the essay concludes, the Google case is about more than search or advertising revenue. It is about whether the dominant platforms of today can retain their grip in the age of artificial intelligence — or whether, like the fall of a great tree, the opening it leaves behind will allow something new to grow.

By Sabina Mammadli