DOJ v. Google: a Google VP says the company pays Samsung an “enormous sum of money” every month to preinstall Gemini on its devices as part of a two-year deal
The company began paying Samsung for Gemini in January, according to Peter Fitzgerald, Google's vice president …
Context & Ripple Effects
Google had proposed not requiring US device makers, browsers and carriers to distribute Gemini for three years in its remedies plan; the DOJ subsequently said the company had retreated from more restrictive Gemini distribution terms partly because of the case.
The Samsung arrangement also sits against a longer record of Google paying for mobile defaults, including its earlier Samsung agreement covering Search, Play Store and Assistant. The new testimony makes AI-assistant placement a concrete part of that distribution history.
First-order effects
- Samsung receives recurring payments under a two-year Gemini preinstallation arrangement, while Google gains a defined channel for putting Gemini in front of Samsung-device users.
- The testimony gives the DOJ a specific commercial agreement to examine alongside Google’s stated willingness to limit compulsory Gemini distribution.
Second-order effects
- Samsung’s preinstall slots become a more visible bargaining point for competing chatbot providers, which Google says had also discussed deals with Samsung.
- Any remedies that distinguish voluntary paid placement from required distribution will directly affect how Google structures OEM AI agreements and how much discretion manufacturers retain.
Third-order effects
- If AI assistants are distributed through the same paid-default and preinstall channels as earlier mobile services, antitrust scrutiny may increasingly shift from search defaults to control of on-device AI entry points.
- The emerging fault line is whether OEM payments preserve partner choice or entrench a platform gatekeeper; that will depend on the terms and enforceability of remedies rather than payment size alone.
The trend: Generative-AI distribution is becoming a mobile-platform competition issue as providers seek OEM placement while regulators test the limits of paid, nonexclusive deals.