Is the AI Threat Real? Skeptics Question Judge’s Core Rationale

The foundation of the Google antitrust verdict is Judge Amit Mehta’s belief that generative AI poses a “long-term threat” to the search industry. But a growing number of skeptics are questioning this core rationale, arguing that the supposed AI threat is either exaggerated or irrelevant to Google’s current monopoly.
Skeptics point out that today’s AI chatbots are often powered by data from the existing internet, which is indexed and dominated by Google. Furthermore, many AI models hallucinate or provide inaccurate information, making them unreliable replacements for search in many contexts. They argue that the path for AI to truly rival Google’s scale and user trust is long and uncertain.
More importantly, critics contend that Google itself is a leading player in AI. The company’s own models, like Gemini, are highly advanced. They argue it’s more likely that Google will use its existing search monopoly and vast data resources to dominate the AI era, rather than be disrupted by it.
By accepting the “AI threat” as a reason for a lighter penalty, the judge may have been convinced by a compelling narrative rather than a concrete reality. The coming years will reveal if AI truly becomes a check on Google’s power, or if the court’s futuristic logic simply allowed a present-day monopoly to escape unscathed.