Google CEO Sundar Pichai delivered stark warnings in federal court Wednesday, asserting that the Justice Department’s proposed fixes for the company’s search monopoly could cripple its ability to invest in research and development, potentially making it “unviable” to continue building Google Search.
Testifying during the remedies phase of the landmark US v. Google antitrust case, Pichai pushed back against DOJ demands that Google sell its Chrome browser and share proprietary search data with competitors. He characterized the data-sharing proposal specifically as feeling like a “de facto divestiture of search” and Google’s entire IP accumulated over 25 years.
Pichai contended that the government’s plan, which includes requiring Google to make critical index portions and user-side data available at marginal cost for ten years, would undermine the company’s core business.
“It would be trivial to reverse engineer and effectively build Google search from the outside,” Pichai stated. He elaborated on the stand, questioning how Google could justify its substantial R&D spending—citing $49 billion across the company last year—if forced to give away the results.
“It’s not clear to me how to fund all the innovation we do,” he said, “if we were to give all of it away at marginal cost.” He added, “It’s not clear to me how we’d have any value for our IP… if we had to share our IP at marginal cost.”
This high-stakes testimony is central to the ongoing hearing before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, which began April 21st. It follows Judge Mehta’s August 2024 ruling that Google illegally maintained its search dominance, partly through costly default placement deals reported to total $26.3 billion in 2021.
The DOJ opened this phase stating its goal is to “restore competition to these markets” and “allow that block of ice to thaw,” specifically demanding the sale of Chrome and a ban on Google’s exclusive default deals. Google’s legal team has consistently called the proposals “extreme” and “fundamentally flawed.”
The Battle Over Chrome
The potential divestiture of Chrome remains a key battleground. Pichai, who helped create Chrome, defended Google’s continued ownership, citing over $1 billion invested last year and its deep “cultural commitment” to web security. He emphasized Google’s role in maintaining the open-source Chromium project—the foundation for Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and others—stating Google contributes over 90% of its code commits.
“I haven’t seen, since we built Chrome, any other company make the kind of investments” Google has, Pichai testified, expressing doubt about a future owner’s commitment. Google has also argued the DOJ’s plan could compromise user privacy and harm partners like Mozilla. The DOJ proposal specifies that any buyer for Chrome must be approved by plaintiffs, considering their plans for Chromium.
Adding complexity, OpenAI executive Nick Turley testified on April 23rd that the AI firm would consider acquiring Chrome if divestiture is ordered. Turley framed Chrome as a potential “onramp” for distributing OpenAI tools like ChatGPT, noting Google had denied OpenAI access to its search API in July 2024.
This interest follows reports from November 2024 that OpenAI was exploring building its own browser and had hired former key Google Chrome architects Ben Goodger and Darin Fisher around the same time.
AI Enters The Antitrust Arena
Artificial intelligence has also become an increasingly prominent theme in the trial. The DOJ contends that Google is using tactics similar to its search strategy to gain an edge in AI, pointing to deals revealed during the trial.
Testimony detailed “enormous sums of money” paid monthly by Google to Samsung since January 2025 for preinstalling Gemini AI—its family of large language models powering its generative AI features.
The DOJ argues this mirrors past illegal search deals. This fight for AI placement involves intense competition, with OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, and Perplexity AI approaching device makers. Perplexity has just partnered with Motorola to pre-install its AI search assistant on new Razr phones.
Pichai confirmed Wednesday that Google aims to finalize a deal with Apple by mid-2025 to make Gemini an option within Apple Intelligence, alongside existing options like ChatGPT.
He noted this multi-provider approach differs from past exclusive search agreements. He also confirmed Google plans to experiment with ads in the Gemini app. However, DOJ expert Dr. Tasneem Chipty testified Wednesday that Google could leverage Gemini to bypass any ban on default search deals, arguing the government’s proposed remedies are necessary to foster competition.
Google’s Defense And Broader Pressures
While defending its position that success comes from superior products, Google has made some adjustments amidst the trial’s scrutiny. Recent reports indicate the company has loosened some agreements to allow pre-installation of rival apps.
Still, Pichai maintained Google’s core defense: “I can hardly think of exceptions to ‘the best product wins out.’” Google had previously suggested alternative, less drastic measures like yearly, non-exclusive default deals, which the DOJ dismissed as “anemic.”
This search case is one facet of widespread regulatory scrutiny Google faces, including the recent ad tech monopoly ruling (with a remedies hearing scheduled for May 2nd), the loss to Epic Games over Android policies, and actions in Europe and China. Judge Mehta is expected to deliver his decision on the search remedies by late summer or early fall 2025.
Last Updated on May 8, 2025 10:10 am CEST
