In August 2023, a U.S. court deemed Google to have a monopoly over search services, a ruling that has ignited ongoing legal battles as the tech giant pursues an appeal. In parallel, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is exploring potential penalties against Google, which may include significant structural changes, such as divesting its Chrome web browser.
As part of this legal process, the DOJ has filed court documents revealing its intention to call Dmitry Shevelenko, the chief business officer of Perplexity, as a witness. Perplexity is an AI-based search provider that has garnered significant attention, recently achieving a valuation of $9 billion, according to a report by Reuters. The DOJ is particularly interested in Shevelenko’s insights regarding "generative AI's relationship with Search Access Points, distribution, barriers to entry and expansion, and data sharing." The term "search access points" refers to platforms like Google Chrome that facilitate internet searching.
This inquiry could bolster the DOJ's case that Google not only monopolises the search industry but also stifles competition by obstructing potential rivals' access to market resources. Speaking to TechCrunch, a representative from the DOJ implied that the information sought from Shevelenko could prove pivotal in assessing the scale of Google's dominance and the corresponding regulatory implications.
Meanwhile, Google's response to emerging threats posed by generative AI tools has involved the integration of its own AI search features, such as AI Overviews, which present AI-generated answers prominently above traditional search results. The rise of AI-driven search technologies, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, signifies a shift in user behaviour towards seeking concise answers to complex queries.
Caught between these two titans, Perplexity finds itself at the centre of an escalating conflict as both Google and the DOJ seek valuable information from the company. In October, Google initiated a subpoena for documents from Perplexity, asserting the need to demonstrate that it experiences viable competition in the search market. Notably, Google has also sought documentation from other competitors, including Microsoft and OpenAI.
Despite the urgency expressed by Google in its court filing—indicating that Perplexity had failed to provide "a single document" despite two months of waiting—the AI startup contended that it had complied with 12 out of 14 requests. Perplexity maintains that it is still assessing the practical implications of gathering the wide-ranging documentation requested, asserting it agreed to furnish copies of licensing agreements pertinent to AI training but is in negotiations over the extent of the information that Google is asking for.
The evolving dynamics of AI automation within business practices continue to provoke discussions around competition and market fairness, exemplified by this significant case involving multiple players in the technology sector. As the investigation unfolds, the implications of generative AI on traditional search paradigms remain at the forefront of industry dialogue.
Source: Noah Wire Services