Examining the Perplexity Position on Antitrust Issues associated with Google

Recently, Aravind Srinivas, the CEO of Perplexity.AI, had announced that his company was asked to testify at the United States Congress on the recent antitrust issues clearly raised by the US FTC against Google.

Now, Perplexity AI's position on the Google antitrust case reveals surprising parallels with the Trump Administration's April 3, 2025 AI memorandums, though significant tensions exist in how their approach to intellectual property protection and competition would impact Indo-Pacific digital sovereignty. Let's understand this further in this brief input.

---

Convergence on Contract-Based Remedies vs. Structural Breakups

Perplexity's antitrust testimony advocating against Google's breakup while supporting contractual reforms aligns notably with the Trump Administration's approach to vendor relationships in M-25-22. Both emphasize:

• Anti-vendor lock-in provisions over structural remedies: Perplexity argues "the remedy isn't breakup. Just let people choose," mirroring M-25-22's focus on "clear data and model portability practices, clear licensing terms, and pricing transparency" to prevent vendor dependencies rather than breaking up technology ecosystems.

• Contractual controls on data usage: Perplexity criticizes Google's control mechanisms that "threatened OEMs and carriers with wide ranging penalties," similar to how M-25-22 requires contracts to "permanently prohibit the use of non-public inputted agency data...to further train publicly or commercially available AI algorithms...absent explicit agency consent".

India's Google Antitrust Actions

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has pursued remarkably similar concerns about Google's market dominance through a different legal framework:

Recent Android TV Settlement

On April 22, 2025, Google settled a nearly four-year-old case with the CCI concerning Android Smart TV anti-competitive practices by:

• Developing a "New India Agreement" providing standalone licenses for Play Store and Play Services without bundling requirements

• Paying ₹20.24 crore (approximately $2.4 million) as settlement

• Waiving requirements for manufacturers to have valid Android Compatibility Commitments for devices that don't include Google apps

This settlement was approved through a majority order, with one member, Anil Agarwal, dissenting—arguing the settlement "does not eliminate existing arrangements under TADA which have been prima facie found to be contravening the provisions of the Act".

Divergent Interests on IP and Competition

Despite these parallels, critical differences emerge in IP protection and competitive priorities:

• IP Protection Stance: The Trump memorandums take a hardline position on IP protection, with M-25-22 requiring agencies to "clearly delineate the respective ownership and IP rights" and explicitly reject weakened IP protections for AI training. Perplexity's testimony, while not explicitly addressing IP law, focuses on competitive access rather than IP protection.

• American-First vs. Open Choice: M-25-21 and M-25-22 repeatedly emphasize "maximizing the use of AI products and services that are developed and produced in the United States", while Perplexity frames its position more neutrally as enabling "consumer choice" regardless of national origin.

• Relationship with Big Tech: Where Perplexity explicitly supports Google retaining Chrome and praises Google for "open-sourcing Chromium", the Trump memorandums take a more cautious stance toward large tech vendors, focusing on preventing "significant and costly dependencies on a single vendor".

Conclusion: Strategic Implications for Indo-Pacific Competition Policy

The intersection of these three approaches—Trump's AI policy framework, Perplexity's antitrust position, and India's CCI enforcement—creates distinct challenges for Indo-Pacific nations:

• Contrasting Remedy Models: While both Trump's memorandums and India's CCI focus on contractual remedies over breakups, they differ in implementation. The CCI's "New India Agreement" created an alternative contractual framework that Google could offer alongside existing agreements, while Trump's approach requires more explicit prohibitions on using government data for commercial AI training.

• Enforcement Mechanisms: The CCI settlement includes specific compliance reporting requirements and a five-year monitoring period, paralleling Trump's memorandum requiring agencies to "ensure contracts permanently prohibit" improper data usage and establish ongoing monitoring.

• Dissent and Accountability: The CCI's published dissent by Anil Agarwal highlights concerns about whether contractual remedies without eliminating existing arrangements would be sufficient—a critique that could equally apply to Perplexity's position that consumer choice alone can address Google's dominance.