Google Seeks Delay in Sharing Data with Rivals Including OpenAI
Google has formally asked a judge to postpone an order requiring the company to share critical data with competitors. This request specifically targets rivals like ChatGPT-maker OpenAI. The move comes as Google actively challenges a federal court ruling that declared the tech giant holds an illegal monopoly in the online search market.
Judge's Ruling on Google's Search Dominance
In 2024, District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington delivered a significant verdict. He ruled that Google employed unlawful tactics to maintain its overwhelming dominance in online search. The judge determined that Google established a monopoly over both search and text advertising through exclusive distribution agreements. These deals effectively made Google the default search option that most people automatically use.
Google is now urging a federal appeals court to reverse this landmark decision. The company argues that Judge Mehta overstepped his authority by attempting to level the competitive playing field. His order mandates that Google share its valuable data with competitors, including the prominent AI firm OpenAI.
Google's Arguments Against the Data Sharing Order
In court filings, Google presents several key arguments against the immediate data sharing requirement. The company contends that complying with the order before the appeal is resolved poses serious risks. Google fears it could lose valuable trade secrets during this interim period.
The search giant strongly disputes the court's characterization of its market position. Google asserts that people choose its services voluntarily because they prefer them, not because they lack alternatives. The company emphasizes user choice as a fundamental aspect of its defense.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, elaborated on this point in a company blog post. She stated that the court's decision failed to recognize the dynamic nature of the technology sector. Mulholland highlighted the rapid pace of innovation and the intense competition Google faces from both established players and well-funded startups.
What Google Is Willing to Accept
Google clarifies that it is not seeking to delay all aspects of Judge Mehta's previous orders. The company expresses willingness to comply with certain requirements while its appeal proceeds. These include provisions related to privacy and security safeguards for user data.
However, Google draws a firm line regarding data sharing and providing syndicated results. The company stated it is prepared to fulfill nearly all other obligations during the appeal process. But it firmly resists turning over its proprietary data or sharing search results and advertisements with competitors at this stage.
Background of the Antitrust Case
This legal battle has deep roots, originating during Donald Trump's first presidential term. The Justice Department initially filed the case against Google in 2020. The matter proceeded to trial in the fall of 2023, culminating in Judge Mehta's August 2024 ruling.
The judge found that Google illegally monopolized the search market through contracts with major smartphone manufacturers. These agreements with companies like Apple and Samsung required Google's search engine to be set as the default option on their devices. Google pays more than $20 billion annually for these preferential placements.
Judge Mehta concluded that these lucrative deals blocked competitors from essential distribution channels. This effectively prevented rival search engines from reaching significant numbers of users.
Subsequent Developments in the Case
The legal proceedings continued with a second trial in spring 2025. During this phase, Judge Mehta rejected a Justice Department proposal to force the sale of Google's popular Chrome browser. This represented a partial victory for the technology company.
However, the judge imposed new conditions on Google's business practices. He allowed Google to continue paying for default search engine placement and AI app installations. But he required that these agreements be rebid annually. This measure aims to create more opportunities for competitors to challenge Google's dominant position in the market.
The case continues to evolve as Google pursues its appeal while navigating the court's requirements. The outcome could significantly reshape the competitive landscape of online search and digital advertising.
