A federal judge has dismissed lawsuits from publisher Penske Media Corporation (PMC) and ed tech company Chegg that alleged Google's AI Overviews illegally pulled readers away by repackaging their online content, Reuters reports. In a memorandum opinion on both lawsuits, Judge Amit Mehta, coincidentally the same judge who ruled that Google maintained a monopoly in online search services in 2024, said the companies failed to argue the search provider violated antitrust laws. PMC and Chegg's original lawsuits claimed that Google was using AI Overviews and its vast index of the web to siphon traffic away from their online ad businesses, hurting their revenue. Chegg additionally said that Google was effectively forcing websites to offer their content up for AI scraping or face being excluded from search results. Judge Mehta dismissed both claims for a variety of reasons, but broadly found that neither company convincingly argued that Google was leveraging its monopoly to get them to provide free material for its AI, or that the search provider was trying to gain an unfair advantage in digital publishing.

Who gets to decide how quickly AI moves? Share Who gets to decide how quickly AI moves? on social media Artificial intelligence (AI) has stirred up more controversy than most things in the past five years. Ever since the introduction of accessible generative AI in 2022, institutions, universities, students, scholars, activists, cognitive specialists, public policymakers and members of the public have all been divided over the ethics of its use. As of the beginning of this month, even the founders of AI companies have taken the same stance. Dario Amodei, chief executive of Anthropic, released an essay calling on AI companies to slow the development of their most advanced models, as the safeguards currently in place are unable to keep up.

The AI'Slowdown' Is an Antitrust Mess By framing their efforts as a "slowdown" rather than an industry-wide push for better security standards, AI labs may have set themselves up for years of regulatory headaches. Following multiple reports of AI agent swarms hacking websites and coordinating via secret message boards, along with a dire message for humanity from an outgoing Anthropic engineer, leading AI companies have called for a coordinated AI development "slowdown ." Alongside various versions of this specific phrase--slowdown--they've also expressed concerns that doing so would run afoul of antitrust laws. Antitrust experts say that while the companies' charged language isn't necessarily doing them any favors, the unrestrained development of a rogue killer AI probably isn't in line with the spirit of the Sherman Act, a key US antitrust law that exists to promote a competitive marketplace. At the same time, getting an official all-clear from the government to move forward could ward off costly investigations down the line.

Allowing AI firms to collude to'pace the frontier' is a dangerous proposition Anthropic's Dario Amodei is not the first corporate CEO to suggest that excessive competition is driving the world to some socially undesirable outcome. The safety breach disclosed by OpenAI after a swarm of its agents coordinated to breach their supposedly secure sandbox, get on the Internet and hack AI platform Hugging Face, warrants urgent action. It demonstrated the ease with which the technology can evade human control and gave concrete form to the existential fears about what it could do to humanity if not securely leashed. The end of the world may well be nigh, as some in the AI industry have warned. These are truly scary times.

AI leaders worry antitrust law could stand in the way of what they view as an increasingly urgent push to coordinate a slowdown in AI development. OpenAI has asked members of Congress in recent weeks for clear guidance about whether orchestrating an industry-wide slowdown on frontier AI development would be legal, people close to the company tell WIRED. Substantive coordination on safety between AI labs may risk running afoul of antitrust law, the people say, which poses a significant obstacle to bringing major tech giants on board with the effort. Last weekend, OpenAI's chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, published a blog post arguing that the best path forward for the AI research world includes "coordinating to slow down future development," which he thinks will be key to ensuring that self-improving AI systems are safe. In the short term, he expects " voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established."

The European Commission claims that Google boosted its own apps and products to the top of search rankings to the detriment of its competitors. The European Commission has levied a $1 billion penalty against Google over alleged competition law violations. An EC investigation found that Google had abused its dominance in the European Union's search and app store markets to funnel people toward its own apps and services, in violation of the EU's Digital Markets Act . The body has ordered Google to refrain from giving preferential treatment to its own services--such as shopping, accommodations, transport, and flights--in search rankings. Google must also allow app developers to communicate and transact with users outside the Play Store, where it takes a commission on sales .

The European Union has fined Google 890 million euros ($1bn), saying the technology giant broke digital antitrust rules by steering users of Google Play and its search engine towards its own services and apps at the expense of rivals. Thursday's penalty is the latest in Brussels' crackdown on Big Tech, which has seen the bloc lead the world in reining in the largest firms from Silicon Valley to Beijing. The European Commission, the bloc's executive branch, said it was acting in the interest of consumers. "The best products should succeed because they're better, not because they're owned by the company running the search engine. And European consumers have a right to be told by app developers where to sign up to the best offers, even when the app store owner does not get a cut," said Teresa Ribera, the commission's executive vice president for clean, just and competitive transition.

Things to Do in L.A. Tap to enable a layout that focuses on the article. This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here . See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. A new federal lawsuit by California drivers accuses major gas chains, including Walmart and 7-Eleven, and technology company Kalibrate of using AI software to collude and keep pump prices artificially high.

Firms' algorithm development practices are often homogeneous. Whether firms train algorithms on similar data or rely on similar pre-trained models, the result is correlated predictions. In the context of personalized pricing, correlated algorithms can be viewed as a means to collude among competing firms, but whether or not this conduct is legal depends on the mechanisms of achieving collusion. We investigate the precise mechanisms through a formal game-theoretic model. Indeed, we find that (1) higher correlation diminishes consumer welfare and (2) as consumers become more price sensitive, firms are increasingly incentivized to compromise on the accuracy of their predictions in exchange for coordination. We demonstrate our theoretical results in a stylized empirical study where two firms compete using personalized pricing algorithms. Our results demonstrate a new mechanism for achieving collusion through correlation, which allows us to analyze its legal implications. Correlation through algorithms is a new frontier of anti-competitive behavior that is largely unconsidered by US antitrust law.

A top Google scientist warned EU antitrust regulators that its proposal requiring the company to share search engine data with rivals risked exposing users' private information. BRUSSELS - A top Google scientist sent a warning to EU antitrust regulators on Tuesday that its proposal requiring the company to share search engine data with rivals such as OpenAI risked exposing users' private information, the sternest rebuke yet in a tussle over Google's lucrative business model. The European Commission, which acts as the EU competition enforcer, has in recent years cracked down on Big Tech via a slew of legislation to ensure that users have more choices and that smaller rivals have room to compete. However, that has triggered the ire of the U.S. government. Sergei Vassilvitskii, with the title of distinguished scientist at Google since 2012 and regarded a leader in his field, will meet EU antitrust officials on Wednesday to voice his concerns and propose a broader approach with better guardrails.