The Department of Justice (DOJ) is ramping up its efforts in the landmark antitrust case against Google, seeking testimony from Dmitry Shevelenko, the Chief Business Officer of Perplexity, an AI search provider valued at $9 billion. This development comes amidst ongoing deliberations over potential penalties against Google, including the possibility of separating its Chrome browser from the rest of its business.
As the DOJ sharpens its focus on Google’s alleged search monopoly, Perplexity’s role in the evolving AI-driven search landscape has made it a critical piece of the puzzle. Here’s a breakdown of the case and Perplexity’s unique position.
The Case Against Google: A Quick Recap
In August 2024, a U.S. court ruled that Google maintains a monopoly in the search market. While Google appeals the decision, the DOJ is considering penalties to foster competition. The proposed measures could include breaking off parts of Google’s ecosystem, such as Chrome, which serves as a key “search access point” where users initiate their internet queries.
“Search access points,” a term central to the DOJ’s arguments, includes platforms like browsers and mobile operating systems where Google dominates and limits competition. The DOJ alleges that Google’s control over these points blocks emerging competitors like Perplexity from gaining a foothold in the search market.
Why Perplexity is a Key Witness
The DOJ is interested in Perplexity’s insights into generative AI, an emerging field that has begun to challenge traditional search engines. Generative AI tools, such as Perplexity AI and OpenAI’s ChatGPT Search, offer direct, conversational answers to user queries, contrasting with Google’s traditional results-driven approach.
Shevelenko’s testimony is expected to focus on:
- Search Access Points: How users access search tools like Chrome or mobile apps.
- Barriers to Entry and Expansion: Challenges faced by generative AI companies in competing with Google.
- Data Sharing: The role of proprietary data in the development and training of AI models.
The DOJ likely aims to demonstrate how Google’s dominance limits the growth of innovative competitors like Perplexity, thus solidifying its argument for harsher penalties.
Perplexity: Caught Between Google and the DOJ
Perplexity’s position is complicated, as it finds itself entangled in requests from both sides of the case:
- The DOJ’s Interest: The Justice Department wants Perplexity’s testimony to highlight the competitive barriers imposed by Google’s ecosystem.
- Google’s Subpoenas: Google is demanding Perplexity’s company documents to bolster its defense that viable competition already exists in the search space.
In October, Google subpoenaed Perplexity for documents related to its business operations, including its licensing agreements and internal strategies. As of December 11, Perplexity has yet to provide all requested documents, prompting Google to accuse the company of delaying tactics.
Perplexity, however, counters that it has complied with 12 out of 14 document requests and is still evaluating the scope of Google’s expansive demands.
For instance, Perplexity has agreed to share licensing agreements specifically tied to AI training but resists providing all licensing agreements, arguing that this request is overly broad and burdensome. The company has requested that Google engage in further discussions to narrow the scope of its demands.
Google’s Defense: Proving Competition Exists
Google is attempting to downplay its dominance by portraying the rise of generative AI search tools as evidence of a thriving competitive market. To this end, it has also subpoenaed other major players in the AI field, such as Microsoft and OpenAI.
Google’s argument hinges on the idea that these companies—along with Perplexity—pose a legitimate threat to its search business. By highlighting the growth and valuation of companies like Perplexity, Google hopes to prove that innovation and competition are alive and well in the search industry.
However, Perplexity’s delayed responses to Google’s requests may hinder the tech giant’s ability to make this case effectively.
What’s at Stake for the Search Industry
This antitrust case could have far-reaching implications for the future of search technology and market competition:
- For Google: A ruling against the company could lead to unprecedented penalties, including the divestiture of key assets like Chrome or restrictions on its business practices.
- For Perplexity and Other Competitors: The case presents an opportunity to level the playing field, opening doors for smaller companies to challenge Google’s dominance.
- For Consumers: The outcome could redefine how we interact with search tools, with generative AI potentially taking center stage.
The Future of Search in an AI-Driven World
As generative AI search tools gain traction, the traditional search landscape is undergoing a seismic shift. Perplexity’s direct-answer approach, while not without its flaws (such as occasional inaccuracies), represents a paradigm shift in how users access information.
Google, aware of this shift, has launched its own AI-driven tools, such as AI Overviews, which generate concise answers displayed above traditional search results. These tools signal Google’s acknowledgment of the competitive threat posed by generative AI and its determination to maintain its leadership in the search market.
What’s Next?
The DOJ’s antitrust case against Google is shaping up to be one of the most significant legal battles in the history of Big Tech. The outcome will not only impact Google’s operations but also set a precedent for how emerging technologies like generative AI are treated in competitive markets.
For Perplexity, the case is both a challenge and an opportunity. While being drawn into the dispute may disrupt its operations, the spotlight on its innovative approach to search could position it as a leader in the post-Google era of internet search.
As the case unfolds, all eyes will be on the courtroom—and on how the testimony of key players like Dmitry Shevelenko influences the future of search.