New Antitrust Flashpoint: Google’s Exclusive Gemini AI Deals Under Scrutiny

In April 2025, court documents revealed that Google considered lock-step exclusivity deals with Android partners—Samsung, Motorola, AT&T, and Verizon—to preload not only its search engine but also its Gemini AI app and Chrome browser on all devices. This move has become the latest battleground in the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust trial, where regulators argue such deals cement Google’s dominance and stifle competition.

The Stakes: Search, AI, and Monopoly Power

• Search Monopoly
  U.S. regulators have already found that Google’s exclusive search-default agreements with major handset makers violate antitrust law, protecting its online-search monopoly.
• AI Extension
  Bundling Gemini AI alongside search would give Google a one-two punch—locking users into its ecosystem for both information and AI assistance.
• Browser Leverage
  By also pushing Chrome, Google could channel more web traffic through its services, raising fresh concerns about data-harvesting advantages.

Behind the Scenes: How Big Were the Deals?

• Enormous Payments
  Internal testimony showed Google was offering Samsung massive monthly sums to make Gemini the default AI assistant on Galaxy devices.
• Global Reach
  Android devices shipped about 305 million units in Q1 2025. Pre-installing Gemini and Chrome on even half of those phones means control over 150 million user touchpoints every quarter.

Antitrust Precedents: Why Regulators Push Back

• EU Android Fines
  In 2018, the European Commission fined Google €4.34 billion for forcing OEMs to bundle Search and Chrome with Android, calling it an illegal practice that blocked rivals.
• Digital Markets Act (DMA)
  In 2025, the EU’s DMA charged Google with fresh violations—targeting its Play Store rules and biased treatment in search—and threatened fines of up to 10% of global sales.
• U.S. Context
  The DOJ seeks not just behavioural changes but structural remedies: forcing the sale of Chrome, banning default payments, and opening the door for rival search and AI apps on Android devices.

Google’s Pushback and Partial Retreat

• Loosened Contracts
  Ahead of trial, Google re-negotiated its deals with Samsung, Motorola, AT&T, and Verizon—dropping strict exclusivity language and allowing pre-loads of competing search and AI products.
• Company Defense
  Google insists the case targets search, not AI, and points to competition from Meta’s AI offerings, Apple’s Safari/Assistant, and others as proof of a vibrant market.

Conclusion

Google’s flirtation with exclusive Gemini AI deals has reignited an age-old tension: balancing the convenience of deeply integrated services against the need for fair competition. As the antitrust trial unfolds, its verdict will set a critical precedent for how AI and platform power intersect—and whether regulators can curb tech giants from tying the next wave of innovation to market dominance.

🔍 Top 3 FAQs

1. What exactly did Google propose?
Documents show Google planned exclusivity agreements requiring OEMs to pre-install Search, Chrome, and Gemini AI by default—limiting room for rival apps.

2. Why are regulators worried about AI bundling?
By pairing its AI assistant with default search on millions of devices, Google could steer users into its ecosystem at the expense of competitors, just as it did with search alone.

3. What remedies could the court impose?
Potential orders include banning default-install payments, mandating non-exclusive contracts, forcing the sale of Chrome, or requiring open distribution partnerships for rival AI and search services.

Sources Reuters