A U.S. court ruled in August that Google had a search monopoly, and while Google appeals, the Justice Department is trying to figure out what kind of punishment it will impose, such as a ban on Chrome.
According to recent court filings, the DOJ intends to subpoena certain witnesses as part of this process. Dmitry Shevelenko is the chief business officer of Perplexity, an AI search provider most recently valued at $9 billion, according to Reuters.
Perplexity and other generative AI tools, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT search, have emerged as potential replacements for Internet searches because they can provide direct answers to complex queries (albeit sometimes with made-up or inaccurate information). . Google has responded to the threat with its own AI search tools, such as AI Overview, which provides AI-generated answers above search results.
The DOJ wants to question Shevelenko about “search access points, deployment, barriers to entry and scale, and the relationship between data sharing and generative AI.”
“Access point scanning” is a term the DOJ uses to describe things like Chrome, which are places people go to browse the Internet.
The filing doesn’t specify exactly why the DOJ wants to question Perplexity about these topics, but it could help the argument that Google deserves stronger penalties because it monopolizes the search business and shuts out potential competitors.
TechCrunch asked Perplexity if it agreed to ask executives for their testimony and thoughts on the antitrust case. Perplexity did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and neither did Google.
Embarrassment is effectively caught in the middle of the conflict, as both sides want information that could help their case. Google subpoenaed Perplexity in October for company documents that it claims are creating viable competition in search. (Google also summoned Microsoft and OpenAI.)
However, Perplexity had not yet provided a “single document” to Google as of December 11. The tech giant argued in a court filing that even after waiting two months, there was “no reasonable basis for further delay.”
Perplexity said in the filing that it had already agreed to fulfill 12 of Google’s 14 document requests, but was “still assessing the burden associated with potentially extensive document collection.”
Perplexity also agreed to provide copies of its licensing agreements “relating to AI training,” but said Google wanted all of Perplexity’s licensing agreements and had asked Google to “meet and discuss” them about them.
