OpenAI Executive Considers Acquiring Google’s Chrome Browser Amid Antitrust Trial
An executive from OpenAI recently mentioned that the company would explore the possibility of acquiring Google’s Chrome browser if regulators mandate Alphabet to divest it in a bid to enhance competition in the search market, as reported by Reuters.
Nick Turley, who oversees product development for ChatGPT at OpenAI, made this statement during Google’s antitrust trial in Washington, where the US Department of Justice is advocating for significant measures to curb Google’s dominance in online search. A prior ruling determined that Google monopolizes search and related advertising sectors, although the company intends to challenge this decision.
Although Google has not officially put Chrome up for sale, Turley’s remarks shed light on the interest major players in artificial intelligence have in this case. The trial also offers insights into the broader landscape of generative AI, where companies are in a race to develop tools and expand their user base.
In the trial, government attorneys raised concerns about Google leveraging its search dominance to gain an advantage in AI by directing users to its own services. On the other hand, Google argued that the generative AI market is competitive, citing offerings from Microsoft and Meta.
An internal document from OpenAI presented during the trial indicated that Turley previously stated that ChatGPT was a leader in the chatbot sector and did not view Google as its primary competitor. However, Turley clarified during his testimony that the document aimed to inspire employees and did not represent the company’s complete strategic outlook. He also emphasized that OpenAI values partnerships, including potential collaborations concerning distribution.
Turley revealed that OpenAI had attempted to collaborate with Google to integrate its search technology into ChatGPT. Encountering issues with its current search provider, OpenAI reached out to Google in July last year, proposing that access to Google’s API could enhance the quality of ChatGPT responses. However, Google declined the request the following month, citing the presence of numerous competitors.
“We do not currently have a partnership with Google,” Turley confirmed.
He added that the DOJ’s suggestion for Google to share its search data could assist OpenAI in delivering more precise and timely results to users. Search functionality remains crucial for ChatGPT, especially in handling real-time queries. Turley mentioned that ChatGPT is still several years away from autonomously addressing approximately 80% of such queries using its search system.
The trial also revisited Google’s agreements with device manufacturers. In a ruling last August, US District Judge Amit Mehta found that Google employed exclusive contracts to maintain its search engine as the default option on Android devices, including those produced by Samsung. Court documents revealed that Google had discussed exclusive arrangements not only for search but also for its Chrome browser and Gemini AI app.
However, recent agreements between Google and partners like Samsung, Motorola, AT&T, and Verizon have evolved to allow the pre-installation of competing services, indicating a more open approach. This shift aligns with Google’s argument that exclusive deals are no longer necessary.
Nevertheless, the Justice Department is advocating for stricter remedies, urging the court to prohibit Google from incentivizing partners to prioritize its search engine, a move it believes is essential to create space for rival offerings.
During his testimony, Google executive Peter Fitzgerald mentioned that the company had recently reminded partners that they are free to incorporate other AI tools on new devices. Letters reiterating this stance were sent as recently as last week.
While the DOJ is seeking structural changes, including restrictions on the payments Google can make to secure default status on devices, legal experts suggest that a comprehensive resolution may not be imminent.
“The DOJ’s position appears robust, but in reality, the likelihood of a swift resolution mandating Google to make sweeping alterations to its business structure in the immediate future is slim,” said Gareth Mills, a partner at the law firm Charles Russell Speechlys.
“The DOJ’s position echoes the firm stance taken against Microsoft in the 1990s concerning the emerging software market, which, despite an initial ruling favoring the breakup of Microsoft, resulted in years of negotiations and appeals, with Microsoft ultimately emerging unscathed, albeit subject to increased regulatory constraints through its settlement with the DOJ,” he added. “It is noteworthy that Google referenced the Microsoft case in its submissions.”
Mills emphasized that while the trial holds significant implications, immediate repercussions are improbable. “This is not to downplay the importance of this case or the potential consequences for Google, but those expecting a swift and dramatic impact may be disappointed,” he noted. “The significance of AI and its evolution as an industry is a concern for the DOJ and other regulators, but as with many issues involving tech giants, it would be simplistic not to acknowledge that economic and political factors could be as influential as competition law principles as this case progresses.”
(Image by Unsplash)
Don’t Miss: Google Cloud Next 25: AI, Cloud, and WAN
For more insights into cybersecurity and cloud technologies from industry experts, be sure to visit Cyber Security & Cloud Expo happening in Amsterdam, California, and London.
Discover other upcoming enterprise tech events and webinars powered by TechForge here.
