Perplexity announced its participation in providing input to both the Department of Justice and Google regarding remedies for Google's illegal monopoly exercise, following last August's US Government ruling that Google illegally exercised monopoly powers by controlling app selection on smartphones. The company's involvement in the rare dual consultation process highlights the proceeding's significance for innovation across the digital economy.
Google's monopoly control operates through elaborate contracts with phone makers and carriers, threatening OEMs and carriers with wide-ranging penalties for not satisfying vague or arbitrary reviews by Google. When Google's OEM and carrier rules launched in 2009, they required inclusion of 12 Google apps by default, expanding to 30 by 2014, with six currently designated as "undeletable."
Phone makers wanting to include any Google apps like Google Maps or Play Store must include all of them, preload Google Search and Google Assistant as required defaults, and limit alternatives for users. Some carriers face lower revenue shares if Google disapproves of their final device configurations. The option to change default search engines on Android devices remains hidden in settings 4-5 clicks from the home screen, limiting consumer awareness.
Three remedies are under consideration in this week's proceedings: forcing Google to sell Chrome, forcing Google to license its data to other companies, and separating Android use from requirements to include all Google apps while eliminating revenue penalties for offering choices. Perplexity advocates for the third remedy as the simplest solution enabling consumer choice and OEM carrier freedom.
Perplexity positions itself as offering choice rather than competition, building AI search that answers questions, completes tasks and interacts with applications. The company anticipates some consumers will choose both Google and Perplexity while others select one option, representing healthy ecosystem choice dynamics.
The company emphasises that OEMs and carriers should feel confident working with multiple providers, with high-quality products earning placement based on merit rather than restrictive contracts. Perplexity argues the risk for America involves any company using dominance to limit consumer choice when better options exist, rather than dominance itself.
Organisations can benefit from increased mobile platform flexibility through reduced OEM restrictions enabling broader enterprise AI application deployment. The remedy proceedings may create opportunities for enterprises to access diverse AI search solutions while maintaining existing Google service integration without contractual limitations affecting technology choice decisions.
The proceedings could enable OEMs and carriers to offer diverse AI solutions without restrictive contract penalties, benefitting enterprise customers seeking AI technology options. Organisations may gain access to enhanced AI search capabilities through reduced platform restrictions while maintaining service provider choice flexibility. The outcome affects enterprise AI procurement strategies by potentially expanding available technology options across mobile and search platforms.