Can we repair the internet? Three new books propose remedies that run the gamut from government regulation to user responsibility. From addictive algorithms to exploitative apps, data mining to misinformation, the internet today can be a hazardous place. Books by three influential figures--the intellect behind "net neutrality," a former Meta executive, and the web's own inventor--propose radical approaches to fixing it. But are these luminaries the right people for the job? Though each shows conviction, and even sometimes inventiveness, the solutions they present reveal blind spots.

Google will not be forced to sell its Chrome browser, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday in the tech giant's ongoing legal battle over being ruled a monopoly last year. The company will be barred from certain exclusive deals with device makers and must share data from its search engine with competitors, the judge ruled. Judge Amit Mehta's ruling follows months of speculation surrounding what penalties Google would face as a result of his decision last year that the company violated antitrust laws as it built what he called an online search monopoly. The ruling, one of the most significant antitrust cases in decades, resulted in an additional hearing in April to determine what actions the government should take as a remedy. Mehta's decision to allow Google to keep Chrome represents a more lenient outcome for the company than what federal prosecutors requested: force the tech giant sell off its marquee search product and to ban it from entering the browser market for five years.

If you're using an Android phone, you've probably noticed that Google's Gemini AI assistant seems to be popping up everywhere, the same way it's been popping into Google Search, Docs, YouTube, etc. And this is true even if you aren't using a Google-branded phone. Turns out, that's no accident because Google is paying Samsung loads of money to make sure Gemini is front and center on its phones. The information comes from a predictable source: testimony in the ongoing and potentially disastrous Google antitrust case. Google has lost two separate antitrust cases brought by the US federal government in the last year.)

Google has been paying Samsung tons of cash every month to pre-install the AI app Gemini on its smartphones, according to a report by Bloomberg . This information comes to us as part of a pre-existing antitrust case against Google. Peter Fitzgerald, Google's VP of platforms and device partnerships, testified in federal court that it began paying Samsung for this service back in January. The pair of companies have a contract that's set to run at least two years. Fitzgerald told Judge Amit Metha, who is overseeing the case, that Google provides Samsung with both fixed monthly payments and a percentage of revenue earned from advertisers within the Gemini app.

The US Department of Justice wants Google to sell off its Chrome browser as part of its final remedy proposal in a landmark antitrust case. The proposal, filed Friday afternoon, says that Google must "promptly and fully divest Chrome, along with any assets or services necessary to successfully complete the divestiture, to a buyer approved by the Plaintiffs in their sole discretion, subject to terms that the Court and Plaintiffs approve." It also would require Google to stop paying partners for preferential treatment of its search engine. The DOJ also demands that Google provide prior notification of any new joint venture, collaboration, or partnership with any company that competes with Google in search or in search text ads. However, the company no longer has to divest its artificial intelligence investments, which was part of an initial set of recommendations issued by the plaintiffs last November.

Google lost its final legal challenge on Tuesday against a European Union penalty for giving its own shopping recommendations an illegal advantage over rivals in search results, ending a long-running antitrust case that came with a whopping fine. The European Union's Court of Justice upheld a lower court's decision, rejecting the company's appeal against the 2.4 billion euro ( 2.7 billion) penalty from the European Commission, the 27-nation bloc's top antitrust enforcer. "By today's judgment, the Court of Justice dismisses the appeal and thus upholds the judgment of the General Court," the court said in a press release summarizing its decision. The commission's original decision in 2017 accused the Silicon Valley giant of unfairly directing visitors to its own Google Shopping service to the detriment of competitors. It was one of three multibillion-euro fines that the commission imposed on Google in the previous decade as Brussels started ramping up its crackdown on the tech industry.

Google just won a partial reprieve in one of the antitrust cases leveled against the company. Federal Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and key states can't claim that Google is protecting a monopoly by promoting its own products in search results over alternatives. The plaintiffs haven't proved there's an "anticompetitive effect," according to the decision. Judge Mehta also tossed antitrust allegations regarding Android's compatibility and anti-fragmentation agreements, Google Assistant, internet of things devices and the Android Open Source Project. The DOJ can still make its remaining arguments, Judge Mehta says.

The trial will begin in the midst of a boom in generative AI -- a wave of new technology that has been pushed by Google's competitors and has thrown the company onto its back foot. Google executives have already begun arguing that the rise of AI companies like OpenAI shows that the tech world is still competitive and that the company doesn't have an unfair grip on who wins and who loses, as some antitrust experts and the company's competitors have argued.

In a recently published paper, a pair of academics propose that the application of artificial intelligence can offer a potent weapon against antitrust behavior in the Big Tech sector. This is the very industry that has advanced this technology, noted one of those academics, Giovana Massarotto, a Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition academic fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and an adjunct professor at the University of Iowa. She underscored this fact in an article for Bloomberg Law, in which she maintains that "the present economic democracy propaganda against Big Tech is not the solution to increase competition in fast-moving technology markets." In fact, she says, the industry's ingenuity is needed to achieve our nation's pro-competition goals. Massarotto and University of Liege (Belgium) Associate Professor Ashwin Ittoo write about their "antitrust machine learning application" (AML) which shows the potential for AI to "assist antitrust agencies in detecting anticompetitive practices faster."

In a recently published paper, a pair of academics propose that the application of artificial intelligence can offer a potent weapon against antitrust behavior in the Big Tech sector. This is the very industry that has advanced this technology, noted one of those academics, Giovana Massarotto, a Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition academic fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and an adjunct professor at the University of Iowa. She underscored this fact in an article for Bloomberg Law, in which she maintains that "the present economic democracy propaganda against Big Tech is not the solution to increase competition in fast-moving technology markets." In fact, she says, the industry's ingenuity is needed to achieve our nation's pro-competition goals. Massarotto and University of Liege (Belgium) Associate Professor Ashwin Ittoo write about their "antitrust machine learning application" (AML) which shows the potential for AI to "assist antitrust agencies in detecting anticompetitive practices faster."