Google Must Share Its Search Index, But Can Keep Chrome and Android

AI companies that aspire to compete with Google in search and other information-retrieval applications got a boost from the United States government.

What’s new: A federal court ruled that Google must turn over its current search index — a database of web links and pages — to U.S.-based AI rivals including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity as well as search engine competitors. However, the court stopped well short of the U.S. Department of Justice’s request that the company be broken up.

How it works: Last year, the same judge ruled that Google held a monopoly on web search and had acted to maintain it. In the new ruling, the judge ordered remedies to help break that monopoly, but he allowed the company to maintain its competitive position in other businesses — specifically browsers and smartphones — of interest to rival AI companies.

Google must share a one-time snapshot of URLs and web pages it collected with all competitors that (i) demonstrate to the government they intend to compete with Google search, (ii) are technically equipped to maintain Google’s data, and (iii) do not pose a risk to the national security of the United States. However, it does not have to share updates or metadata like its assessments of webpage quality, frequency of updates, or mobile-friendliness.
Google must syndicate its search results to competitors under the same terms it currently does to commercial partners.
Google will not have to sell its Chrome browser or Android mobile operating system.
Google can continue to pay partners like Apple or Mozilla to showcase its search results in their web browsers. However, it can’t require that any partner use its browser exclusively.

Behind the news: The federal government filed its antitrust case against Google in 2020, well before the 2022 launch of ChatGPT. But the subsequent emergence of generative AI dramatically changed the stakes two ways, as the judge points out in his ruling. First, AI has expanded the field of information retrieval beyond traditional search engines. Second, competitors like OpenAI loosened Google’s grip on the search business in a way Bing or DuckDuckGo had not. The court’s remedies reflect this new order: Google must share its data with competitors in AI as well as search, but more drastic remedies aren’t required, because AI has created robust competition in search. However, Google still faces potential remedies in a separate U.S. antitrust case over its online advertising business, along with a newly levied $3.5 billion fine by European antitrust courts.

Why it matters: The court’s ruling reflects the growing strength of AI companies in the business of retrieving information. However, it provides only limited openings to Google’s AI competitors and stops short of giving them broad opportunities to challenge the company. Had the judge ordered Google to sell off Chrome or Android — browsers and smartphones being major avenues that drive users to a search engine as well as opportunities for broad enhancement by AI — other AI companies would have a better shot at competing with Google Search.

We’re thinking: The judge said predicting the future of AI and search would require a crystal ball. Nonetheless, it’s already clear that large language models are taking over a significant part of the role once played by traditional search engines. Fostering competition could lead to even better products for helping users find information.