A D.C. federal judge faced the prospect Wednesday of years more involvement in the U.S. Justice Department's case against Google's search monopoly, saying during a hearing that he's trying to balance avoiding being a "referee" for his remedies decision while preventing "misuses" of data sharing and search syndication mandates.

Google has been ordered to prop up its search rivals, but the exact language of how the order will be implemented hasn't been worked out. (iStock.com/bigtunaonline) U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta's early September ruling, which ordered Google LLC to prop up search rivals while rejecting the government's more sweeping remedies proposals, called for the parties to work on the exact language of the injunction that will implement that decision. With the sides accusing each other of pushing for remedies manipulating the decision, Judge Mehta said Wednesday that he's trying to strike a balance for the road ahead.

"I don't want to be a referee," Judge Mehta said. "That part of my job ought to be left behind."

But while Judge Mehta said he doesn't want to have to preside over a myriad of disputes about the exact terms and implementation of his remedies decision over the length of the six-year term, he also left open the possibility of having to weigh in where needed. If the DOJ tries to "push the boundaries" or a third party "runs afoul" of the limits of access to Google's search results and data, Google should be able to seek relief and the DOJ should also be able to raise concerns about Google's compliance, Judge Mehta said.

The goal of the remedies is to open up competition that Judge Mehta found last year had been closed off by Google's effectively exclusive distribution contracts with Mozilla, Apple and Samsung, under which it paid billions of dollars annually in shared search advertising revenue to be made the default search engine on their browsers and devices.

While Judge Mehta in September rejected calls by the DOJ and its state partners to divest the Chrome browser or ban those default contracts and payments entirely, he decided Google should prop up current and would-be search rivals left hopelessly behind by the default agreement lockout and the massive data advantage it ultimately conferred. The DOJ now argues Google is trying to water down some of the mandates imposed.

With the parties fighting Wednesday over some of the terms of those mandates, like who counts as a "qualified competitor" eligible to receive Google's data and syndicated search results, and what they can do with them, Judge Mehta said he hopes to issue a new decision resolving those disputes relatively quickly.

Judge Mehta also said he knew there was a risk of further disputes when giving the parties room to shape the injunction. "That's OK," Judge Mehta said, as the point was to hammer out the best possible order.

One thing the DOJ won't fight Google on, according to government attorney Richard Cameron Gower, is trying to keep the company from taking disputes directly to the court. If Google wants to object to a would-be qualified competitor or proposed privacy safeguards for its data, for instance, "they have the right to do so," Gower told Judge Mehta. He said the hope is that Google won't need to.

"I'm not as hopeful as you are," Judge Mehta responded. He predicted that Google is bound to push for more privacy safeguards than enforcers want. And he pointed to concerns raised in this spring's remedies trial that Google imposed such stringent privacy restrictions on data shared under a European Union mandate that it was rendered essentially useless.

In the event of disputes, DOJ attorney David Dahlquist said, the court is free to delegate any issue to a technical committee envisioned by the remedy decision. "Privacy might be one of those," Dahlquist said, but Judge Mehta replied he didn't know how the delegation of issues squares with the idea of Google being able to raise disputes. Dahlquist in turn said Google will have some say on the committee, including on privacy issues.

Judge Mehta said separately that there will have to be a "balance" between providing rivals with sufficient data and ensuring adequate privacy safeguards.

"There is going to be some privacy vulnerability," Judge Mehta said, calling for safeguards "on the front end" to limit data use, and asserting it's not enough to audit data users only after misuse and revoke the certification allowing them to receive it.

The judge was particularly concerned about recipients simply turning around and selling the data "to whomever comes along." While Dahlquist said recipients should have the freedom to use the data to compete "as they see fit," Judge Mehta raised concerns that a recipient could try to use the data to compete as a search engine, experience setbacks, and try to turn around and use the data to "make a quick buck."

Concerns about potential misuse overlapped heavily with questions of which companies to certify as qualified competitors, with Judge Mehta noting that nothing in his order requires those companies to disclose their financials or other information. He worried that companies that shouldn't be considered might "fall through the cracks."

Gower urged the judge to reject a Google proposal for annual recertification, calling it "unnecessary red tape." Instead, he said, companies could be flagged to lose their qualified competitor status if found not to be pushing their way into the market. And he expressed openness to audits when suspicions are raised.

An attorney for Google, John E. Schmidtlein of Williams & Connolly LLP, similarly argued that the DOJ's proposals would deny Google "transparency" into companies receiving its data, especially for little-known firms and industry newcomers poised to get a "trove" of data with "enormous" privacy and security concerns.

Some of the potential qualified competitors are obvious, like DuckDuckGo and Yahoo. The parties Wednesday specifically mentioned Microsoft's Bing. But the DOJ also convinced Judge Mehta to include in his September remedies decision broad language meant to make artificial intelligence providers eligible too.

On Wednesday, however, Judge Mehta raised concerns about an "open-ended" definition of qualifying AI that would scoop up a "whole host" of applications. Gower voiced openness to language limiting availability to AI meant for broad information needs. Schmidtlein said the definition must be limited to "true search-related products."

Future disputes in the case will not be limited to the ultimate injunction. Google has vowed to appeal, as it has in the separate DOJ case over its advertising placement technology monopolies, where the parties just wrapped an 11-day remedies phase trial on the government effort for a breakup of the business. It's also possible the DOJ will file a cross-appeal of the parts of Judge Mehta's remedies decision it doesn't like. "We do not agree with everything," Dahlquist said Wednesday.

DOJ officials have so far said there's been no decision on whether to appeal. An attorney for the state plaintiffs, Jonathan B. Sallet, a special assistant attorney general from Colorado, said the same thing Wednesday at an event immediately after the hearing.

The parties also fought during the more than 2½-hour hearing over what, if any, restrictions Google can impose on its syndicated search results.

Dahlquist said that to ensure syndication acts as a "bridge" to competition, rivals should be able to use Google's data "as they see fit" to beef up their native search engines, instead of being bound by Google limitations meant "to prevent competition." Schmidtlein said Judge Mehta had explicitly envisioned limits on how the syndicated results could be used, but he argued that Google never meant to impose such strict limits that syndication would be useless.

Schmidtlein also pushed back on DOJ arguments that Google was trying to give itself power to condition access to key apps like the Play Store on also carrying its search engine.

"We never made that representation," Schmidtlein said. "Google would never do that."

Conversely, Schmidtlein defended a proposal to allow the conditioning of access of apps like YouTube and Maps on the exclusive distribution of Google's AI products like Gemini and Overviews, arguing those products have not been found to hold monopoly or market power. In the rapidly developing AI market, Schmidtlein said, Google should be able to employ the same tactics of its rivals, like Microsoft and its Copilot.

Judge Mehta had crafted his remedies decision to stop Google from using "the same anticompetitive playbook for its GenAI products that it used for search." Among other things, that meant ensuring AI rivals like OpenAI Inc. would be eligible to receive its data as qualified competitors. And Gower said Wednesday that as an adjudicated monopolist, Google cannot pursue some of the same tactics allowed for others.

The parties also fought over how to structure Google's search distribution contracts. The DOJ pushed for one-year-only contracts that must be renewed, while Google sought flexibility to have multiyear contracts that distribution partners could opt out of on a yearly basis. Gower said multiyear contracts could effectively lock in partners given little choice, and no other current search engine options, while Schmidtlein said partners prefer multiyear contracts.

They also fought over whether Google can bundle search placement across devices and access points, as the company wants, with the ability to opt out, or if its agreements must only be one device and one access point at a time, as sought by the DOJ.

The federal government is represented by David Dahlquist, Adam Severt, Veronica Onyema, Travis Chapman, Diana Aguilar, Sarah Bartels, Grant Fergusson, Kerrie Freeborn, Meagan Glynn, Richard Cameron Gower, Karl Herrmann, Ian Hoffman, John Hogan, Elizabeth Jensen, Ryan Karr, Claire Maddox, Michael McLellan, Keane Nowlan, Andrew Tisinger, Sara Trent, Jennifer Wamsley and Catharine Wright of the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division.

The states are represented by their respective attorneys general and William F. Cavanaugh Jr. of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

Google is represented by John E. Schmidtlein, Benjamin M. Greenblum, Colette T. Connor, Kenneth C. Smurzynski, Graham W. Safty, Christopher Yeager, Gloria K. Maier and Aaron P. Maurer of Williams & Connolly LLP, Michael S. Sommer and Franklin M. Rubinstein of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC and Mark S. Popofsky and Matthew L. McGinnis of Ropes & Gray LLP.

The cases are U.S. et al. v. Google LLC, case number 1:20-cv-03010, and Colorado et al. v. Google LLC, case number 1:20-cv-03715, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.