Google Agrees to Give DOJ AI Docs After Search Monopoly Ruling

Alphabet Inc.’s Google will give up some documents on the integration of generative AI in search as part of the next phase in the federal government’s monopoly case against the tech giant.

The company is open to providing the Justice Department with records on generative AI provided they relate to the online search market, Google counsel John Schmidtlein of Williams & Connolly said Thursday during a hearing in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Google is also prepared to produce documents tied to AI tools that are in “engineering development,” Schmidtlein said, in what he called a compromise to narrow the DOJ’s original request.

Thursday’s hearing came as the court readies for an April 2025 proceedingon potential remedies stemming from its August ruling finding that Google illegally monopolized the search market through exclusive deals.

The DOJ earlier this month said it’s considering asking for an order breaking up Google. It has also argued that any remedy must account for the substantial impact that artificial intelligence is likely to have on the search industry.

The department is due to submit a final proposal by Nov. 20.

Justice Department lawyer David E. Dahlquist said during Thursday’s hearing that the AI records are part of an effort to get a more complete picture of Google’s search business, which he said has evolved significantly since discovery in the first phase of the case ended in 2022.

The department wants to learn more about AI as it relates to search, search features and search access points, which Dahlquist said includes the Google Chrome browser.

“We don’t know what we don’t know,” he said, citing Alphabet’s launch of the Gemini chatbot in May and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai’s recent comments about the integration of AI.

Impasse

But while the DOJ and Google agreed on the scope of certain AI issues, they were at an impasse on several government requests. That included requests for documents on the distribution of AI on smartphones, as well as any new agreements—and underlying discussions on agreements–Google has with third-parties such as Apple Inc.

Schmidtlein also raised the possibility of prohibiting the disclosure of certain documents after the Aug. 5 ruling. That led to discussions that are “highly lawyer-involved,” he said, referencing the potential privilege issues.

Judge Amit Mehta, who is overseeing the case, urged the DOJ to “narrow” the scope of some of the requests. Yet, he also said that the DOJ was entitled to records relating to negotiations tied to its distribution agreements.

He expressed similar concerns about the scope of the DOJ’s request for documents relating to internal analyses relating to foreign regulatory enforcement actions.

A decision on remedies is expected by August 2025. Google has already said it plans to appeal Mehta’s August decision.

A coalition of states who sued Google alongside the DOJ is also weighing potential remedies.

The case is United States v. Google LLC, D.D.C., 1:20-cv-03010-APM, hearing 10/24/24