Google says it wouldn't force its device makers, browser, and wireless carrier licensees to distribute Gemini to US users for three years, in a proposed remedy

Google dominated the last era of search. Now the company and the US Justice Department are battling over how to set a fair playing field for generative AI.

Wired 2024-12-22 Paresh Dave

Context & Ripple Effects

Google’s remedy proposal extends the search case into AI distribution: it would bar compulsory Gemini distribution through device makers, browsers and wireless carriers for three years. It sits alongside a proposed change allowing browser companies to strike multiple default agreements across platforms, reflected in Google’s proposed browser-default flexibility.

The issue is not merely product availability but control of the channels through which users encounter an AI assistant. Later DOJ litigation highlighted Google’s retreat from more restrictive Gemini arrangements, while testimony described monthly payments to Samsung for Gemini preinstallation, underscoring why partner deals are central to the remedy debate.

First-order effects

If adopted, the proposal would prevent Google from making Gemini distribution a required condition for its US device, browser and carrier licensees during the three-year period.
Licensees would gain more formal latitude to decide whether and how to offer Gemini, rather than treating its distribution as a mandatory bundled obligation.

Second-order effects

Competing AI providers could have a clearer opening to negotiate placement with handset makers, browsers and carriers, because Google’s licensing terms could not compel Gemini distribution.
Google would still be able to pursue voluntary commercial arrangements, so scrutiny is likely to shift from mandatory bundling toward the terms and scale of paid preinstallation deals.

Third-order effects

The search remedy process could become a mechanism for governing AI distribution advantages inherited from platform control, rather than addressing search defaults alone.
If similar limits are imposed or negotiated elsewhere, AI assistant competition may depend less on exclusive access to default channels and more on partners’ ability to multi-home across providers.

The trend: Antitrust remedies are increasingly targeting the distribution chokepoints that can turn an incumbent platform’s reach into early AI-assistant adoption.

Discussion

@bonybean Bony Bean on x
Google's latest stance on its Gemini project signals a shift in its antitrust remedy proposals. As the battle with the US Justice Department unfolds, the focus is on creating a fair landscape for generative AI in search. Dive into the details here: https://www.wired.com/...
@bonybean Bony Bean on x
Explore the ongoing battle between Google and the US Justice Department over generative AI and search. Discover how Google's proposal to not impose Gemini on partners seeks to ensure a fair playing field in the evolving digital landscape. Read more: https://www.wired.com/...
@thecowboytester @thecowboytester on bluesky
It's still technically a Mozilla fork. The part where Google is butt hurt are the parts where they added proprietary things they want to keep like data tracking and Google ecosystem integration.
@jj-unifil @jj-unifil on bluesky
Chrome doesn't need to be sold. It needs to be banned. Worse browser ever!!!
@thecowboytester @thecowboytester on bluesky
Google was a search engine that pioneered building search indexes using probabilistic logic algorithms (AI). Chrome was originally a Firefox fork with which they skirted open source licensing issues by claiming Chrome is also open source. So technically Mozilla made Chrome.
@foolishhoomans @foolishhoomans on bluesky
Google is the OG enshittifier.
@joemayall Joe Mayall on bluesky
Google doesn't innovate. It made a browser at the onset of the internet. Everything else (Android, YouTube, Looker) it has acquired, which anti-monopoly laws should stop. [embedded post]
@glenngabe Glenn Gabe on bluesky
Google's proposal based on the monopoly ruling -> Google files its proposed remedies in the DOJ's search antitrust lawsuit, including letting browser companies have multiple default agreements across platforms — blog.google/outreach-ini... #google #seo #legal [image]
@timothybucksf Timothy Buck on threads
Shots fired! “If DOJ felt that Google investing in Chrome, or our development of AI, or the way we crawl the web, or develop our algorithms, were at all anticompetitive, it could have filed those cases. It did not.”
@carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on threads
Google has published its counter proposal to the DOJ's request that they sell Chrome, end default search deals, provide its search index to competitors and potentially sell Android to address their search monopoly from search default deals with Apple. …
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
Google is smoking something. not only did they counter DOJ's robust proposal to remedy their anticompetitive behavior with the bare minimum, they reduced the term from ten years to three (less time than the actual lawsuit). Will fall to sleep laughing tonight. [image]
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Google offered its remedy provisions in the search antitrust case it just lost on the Friday night before Christmas week. https://blog.google/...
@mozilla @mozilla on x
Some of the DOJ's proposed Google Search antitrust remedies risk breaking more than they fix. We hope the court will consider the bigger picture here—because the decisions made today will shape the internet for decades to come 🔗 read more: https://blog.mozilla.org/...
@khushitavasant @khushitavasant on x
. @Google says in a blog post, “We will appeal the Court's decision but the process requires that we first file proposed remedies. This is a case about contracts. Antitrust law is clear that remedies should be directed to those contracts, unlike DOJ's overbroad proposal.”
@khushitavasant @khushitavasant on x
Proposal also prohibits Google from conditioning licensing, payment, or any other form of consideration on an Android partner agreeing not to preload or place rival general search engines or third-party browsers on mobile devices.
@khushitavasant @khushitavasant on x
On AI, Google says Android partners can license Google Play, Search, and/or Chrome without also licensing Gemini Assistant app. It further prohibits Google from conditioning consideration on a partner refraining from the preload of rival generative AI assistive chatbot services.
@kamylbazbaz Kamyl Bazbaz on x
you are not serious people
r/technology r on reddit
Google's counteroffer to the government trying to break it up is unbundling Android apps
r/Android r on reddit
Our remedies proposal in DOJ's search distribution case

Chronicles