Google asked a US judge to pause sharing search data with rivals, Reuters reported. AI commercialization pressure is colliding with remedy schedules, forcing a dispute over mandated data access.
Google is trying to speed AI commercialization while fighting remedies that could weaken its data advantage, creating a tension between growth goals and mandated openness.
Before this filing, Google faced investor doubts about keeping pace with OpenAI and antitrust scrutiny. In major US platform cases, courts have used disclosure remedies to reduce interoperability advantages. A US judge ruled in 2024 that Google used unlawful tactics to maintain search dominance. Google combined Google Brain and DeepMind in 2023, supporting Gemini development.
Google asked to postpone a court ordered requirement to share data with rivals. It argued data sharing could expose trade secrets with no remedy after appeal. DeepMind leadership says infrastructure work supports rapid diffusion of models across Google products. A post-ruling analysis by TechPolicy.Press described data sharing as a tool to cut scale advantage. “We pretty much talk every day about strategic things and where should the technology go, and what does the wider Google need,” said Demis Hassabis, CEO at Google DeepMind, according to India Today.
The AI growth push depends on scale and data advantages, while the proposed remedy requires broader access to data. Microsoft’s decree upheld API and protocol disclosure in June 2004, showing conduct remedies can persist after review. Daily CEO level coordination to ship Gemini faster sits beside a request to defer outside access. The TechPolicy.Press warning about watered down remedies collides with investor talk of faster internal shipping. Meta narratives cite Cloud AI backlog conversion and buybacks while court papers focus on irrecoverable disclosure.
Google’s appeal posture treats data as a trade secret, while the remedy frames it as a licensable input. Disclosure remedies target information advantage, while DeepMind describes model diffusion across Search and other products. Investor drivers cite Gemini monetization, while the remedy contemplates use for third party GenAI products. Microsoft’s protocol disclosures stayed in place as conduct relief, showing implementation can outlast headlines. Strategic implications center on a moat being converted into an input rivals can legally use.
Whether the judge will grant a pause of the data sharing portion remains unspecified. Specific data fields and access terms required under remedies stay unclear. Appeal timing and any interim compliance deadlines constrain operational planning. Limits bar claims that the appeal will succeed or that remedies will be overturned. Limits also bar quantifying Gemini revenue uplift beyond the provided metrics. How quickly a stay decision arrives and whether licensed datasets include GenAI use will determine the openness baseline.