Following Google’s appeal regarding the antitrust case, the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks to summon particular witnesses. Dmitry Shevelenko, the chief business officer of Perplexity, has been called upon to testify against Google, a direct competitor in the tech arena. According to reports , Dmitry Shevelenko is to be interviewed by the DOJ regarding the relationship between generative AI and Search Access Points, distribution, barriers to entry and expansion, and data sharing. DOJ believes the information might strengthen its argument that Google monopolizes the search business and excludes potential competitors and, as a result, deserves more severe penalties. The link between Perplexity and Google Perplexity and other generative AI tools, such as OpenAI’ s ChatGPT Search, have emerged as a potential alternative to internet searches. These tools can provide direct responses to complex inquiries, even when faced with inaccurate or made-up information. Google, however, saw it as a challenge and responded by developing its own AI search tools, including AI Overviews, which display AI-generated responses above search results. Recently, Aravind Srinivas, the CEO of Perplexity AI expressed his desire to form a partnership with news publishers who have accused the Google challenger of stealing their workstream. He attacked Google’s business model of directing consumers to websites while making money from advertisements or sponsored results. Aravind Srinivas stated, “We certainly were very surprised about the lawsuit because we actually wanted a conversation.” This shows that Perplexity has shown interest in going against Google. This must be the reason why DOJ knows they will cooperate. What is the weight of Perplexity’s testimony? In October, Google served a summons on Perplexity to obtain company documents to substantiate its case that it has a viable competitor in the search industry. However, Google lamented in a court filing that it had not received “a single document” from Perplexity as of December 11. The company contends that after two months of waiting, there is “no conceivable justification for further delay.” According to the filling, Perplexity has already consented to fulfill 12 of Google’s 14 document requests. Still, it claims that it is continuing to assess the burden associated with the collection of such a potentially extensive universe of documents. Perplexity further states that it has agreed to submit copies of licensing agreements related to AI training. But Google wants all of Perplexity’s licensing agreements and has urged Google to “meet and confer” on this matter. The antitrust case The antitrust case was started by the DOJ in 2020 and was joined by more than 30 state attorneys general. The case stated that Google has unfair control over the internet search market. It claimed that Google was breaking the law to stop competing search engines like Bing and DuckDuckGo from doing business. Source: Cloudflare Cloudflare report analysis also showed the extent of Google’s monopoly to be 88.5%. In particular, Google made deals with big companies like internet browsers and smartphone makers like Apple and Android to be the default search engine on their products. This pushed rivals out of the market and stopped them from growing. Ted Sfikas, field chief technology officer at Amplitude explained, “Google’s Search market is so dominant and it is inextricably tied to Google Chrome, Google Ad Network, Google Ads Hub, Google Analytics, and Google Tag Manager, they are demonstrating monopoly power when they cause harm to the market.” Source: Cloudflare According to Cloudflare, Chrome led by 65.8%, which is also part of Google. Judge Amit Mehta agreed with the DOJ that Google acted as a monopolist in the internet search space by barring competitors. This created a feedback loop between monopolization and increased ad revenue, which allowed the company to raise digital ad prices and further dominate the market. According to the verdict, Google has an 89.2% share of the general search market, which rises to 94.9% on mobile devices. However, Google announced its intention to appeal the ruling, alleging that it would restrict consumers’ access to their preferred search engine . From Zero to Web3 Pro: Your 90-Day Career Launch Plan
