Google’s secret AI strategy came out in court. Why the media should worry

One of the central arguments in the ongoing antitrust trial against Google revolves around its deals to secure default search engine status on various devices, such as the iPhone. Most consumers simply want their devices to work out of the box and rarely adjust default settings.

This week, it was revealed that despite the looming threat of a potential breakup over such practices, Google is continuing a similar strategy in the AI space. According to Bloomberg, testimony in the trial disclosed that Google is paying Samsung “enormous sums” for its Gemini assistant to be the default on Samsung smartphones—a deal that began in January. Google reportedly outbid other major AI providers, including OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft.

This mirrors Google’s approach to traditional search almost to the letter. A core argument of the government’s case has been how Google has used its vast resources to buy its status as the default search engine on many of the world’s most popular products, making it impossible for competitors to get any kind of foothold. To be the default on iOS alone, Google reportedly pays Apple $20 billion a year. As a result of that deal and others like it, Google’s market share in search has been hovering at 90% for more than a decade, leaving Bing, DuckDuckGo, and everyone else with single-digit scraps.

Now with AI, the consequences of a Gemini default could be even more dramatic. Besides shutting out its AI rivals, Google’s domination as the default assistant on phones would paint a dire picture for publishers and content creators. 

What a dominant Gemini could mean

AI search engines have existed for a couple of years now, so we know a few things about how people use them. Industry data shows a pretty clear trend: AI search creates substantially less referral traffic to websites than traditional search. Publishers, of course, depend on search traffic for audience growth and advertising, and this tension is the main reason many news publishers are either inking content licensing deals with AI providers or launching lawsuits against them.

OpenAI has been prolific in the number of publishers it has signed deals with, and Meta and Microsoft have also shown a willingness to pay for content. So far, however, Google has shown very little interest in doing the same. It’s deployed AI Overviews—and, more recently, AI Mode—to search results without giving publishers a dime. It hasn’t yet applied AI summaries to Google News, but it’s clearly interested in putting more AI in its search products over time.

The exception to Google’s no-deal rule is Reddit, which signed a deal with Google in February 2024 that reportedly involved the search giant paying Reddit $60 million a year to access its repository of user-generated content. While it shows Google isn’t philosophically against signing licensing deals, Reddit is a unique case: Its archive is vast, and it’s all human-created—exactly the kind of data AI systems thrive on.

No single publisher has an archive that’s nearly so attractive, and Google doesn’t want to set a further precedent of paying for content, since it would dramatically alter its business model. On the other side, publishers are still dependent on Google for search traffic, so they won’t risk being kicked off Google services entirely if they poke the bear with a lawsuit. There’s simply too much to lose.

The power of the AI default

That’s why the media has a lot riding on the result of the Google antitrust trial. It’s not just about splitting up Google’s interconnected businesses—it also could have a large effect on how publishers get paid for their content in the AI era. Samsung’s market share is significant (about 23% in the U.S. and worldwide), and it may end up being the tip of the spear. If Google is allowed to keep the Samsung deal in place, the logic almost certainly rolls downhill to Apple.

Apple has been struggling to bring AI to its ecosystem, and it’s yet to launch the fully powered AI Siri it unveiled last year. A Gemini preload on the iPhone, sweetened by the sort of multibillion-dollar fee Google already pays for default search, would let Apple fill the gap without rushing unfinished tech to market—and it would leave publishers facing a closed loop on roughly half of U.S. smartphones.

The courts will soon decide whether this strategy even survives its collision with antitrust law. Amit Mehta, the judge presiding over Google’s case, is expected to issue a ruling this summer, and the Justice Department is lobbying for options that range from banning “default” payments outright to forcing Google to spin off Chrome into its own company.

The media already has good reason to worry about the rise of AI, which is upending business models and potentially redefining copyright. But an AI future where Google is as dominant as it is in search today would be even more worrisome. It would be the worst of both worlds: no licensing checks and no search referrals, because user queries never leave the on‑device chat box. Regulators might call this the next default monopoly. Publishers might call it something else—extinction economics.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91322162/googles-secret-ai-strategy-antitrust-case-media-should-worry?partner=rss&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss+fastcompany&utm_content=rss