Fake reviews have been a growing problem for online platforms of all sizes, with Google and Amazon particularly impacted. Google has already taken measures to fight back against fake reviews, Amazon has sued companies providing fake reviews, and the FTC has rolled out rules make fake reviews illegal.

Despite the measures it has taken, the CMA has not been happy with Google’s progress fighting fake reviews. Following an investigation, the CMA reached an agreement with Google for it to take stronger action.

The undertakings offered by Google – one of the most used review platforms in the world – commit the company to have in place enhanced processes to tackle fake reviews written about businesses and services. Google has also agreed to enforce sanctions to deter businesses that try to benefit from fake reviews and sanction those that write fake or misleading reviews.

The agreement comes after the CMA launched an investigation into Google over concerns it may have been breaching consumer law by failing to take sufficient action to protect people from fake reviews – including not doing enough to detect and remove fake reviews, act on suspicious patterns of behaviour, or properly sanction reviewers and businesses who take part in fake review activity.

” When it comes to tackling fake reviews, Google is leading the way. Left unchecked, fake reviews damage people’s trust and leave businesses who do the right thing at a disadvantage,” said Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA.

“The changes we’ve secured from Google ensure robust processes are in place, so people can have confidence in reviews and make the best possible choices. They also help to create a level-playing field for fair dealing firms.

“This is a matter of fairness – for both business and consumers – and we encourage the entire sector to take note.”

Google has agreed to the following:

• An enhanced approach to tackling fake reviews: Google has committed to rigorous steps to detect and remove fake reviews – enabling it to rapidly identify and investigate businesses and reviewers that profit from fake reviews.
• Consequences for rogue reviewers around the world: Individuals who repeatedly post fake or misleading reviews for UK businesses (positive or negative) will have their reviews deleted and will be banned from posting new reviews – regardless of their location.
• Consequences for UK businesses: The undertakings mean that businesses found to be boosting their star ratings via fake reviews will have prominent ‘warning’ alerts added to their Google profiles to flag to consumers that suspicious activity has been detected. This will be visible on businesses’ Google profiles, where their overall review scores are shown. Businesses will also have their review function deactivated, meaning they cannot receive any new reviews. Those firms that repeatedly engage in fake review activity will have all their reviews deleted for 6 months or more.
• Easier reporting: The undertakings commit Google to put in place a robust reporting function that allows consumers to easily and quickly report concerning reviews. This includes the ability to report ‘incentives’ – i.e. a payment or reward in exchange for a positive review – which will apply regardless of whether the incentive is offered in person or online.

The CMA cautions businesses to familiarize themselves with the new guidelines or risk possible investigations and fines if they are in violation.

Until now, users could have JavaScript disabled and still use Google Search. While JavaScript is commonly used for a variety of reasons, including animations, media playback, web forms, data collection, and loading or reloading content without refreshing the entire webpage, as is common with various web applications.

Nearly all websites use JavaScript to some degree, making it somewhat surprising that Google search still allowed users to have it disabled. According to users on social media, Google is redirecting those with JavaScript turned off to a page warning them they will need to enabled it to continue searching.

In a statement to TechCrunch, Google said it had made the change in the interest of security.

“Enabling JavaScript allows us to better protect our services and users from bots and evolving forms of abuse and spam,” the spokesperson said, “and to provide the most relevant and up-to-date information.”

It’s interesting that Google is citing security as the reason for requiring JavaScript, given that JavaScript has a history being impacted by security vulnerabilities.

As TechCrunch points out, Google may be trying to reduce third-party access to Google Search data, since multiple third-party tools began experiencing issues accessing such data since the change.

It’s also possible Google want’s JavaScript access enabled since it plays such a role in collecting user browsing data. The company has taken steps to obsolete the framework plugins have used for years, including some of the most popular ad-blocking plugins available. As a result, Chrome users’ ability to block ads and tracking has been effectively crippled.

Ecosia is a search engine that provides results from the leading search engines, including Bing, Google, Wikipedia, and Yahoo. The company gives users control over their own privacy, as well as the level of customization they want from the source search engines.

The feature that most sets Ecosia apart, however, is that it uses 100% of its profits to plant trees, working with local organizations to “restore and protect biodiversity hotspots.” The company has planted 222 million trees in more than 35 countries.

Mozilla is partnering with Ecosia to make it one of the default options in the list of search engines included with the Firefox web browser.

Your tech choices matter more than ever. That’s why at Mozilla, we believe in empowering users to make informed decisions that align with their values. In that spirit, we’re excited to announce we’re growing our partnership with Ecosia, a search engine that prioritizes sustainability, and social impact. After Germany, we are now offering the option to choose the climate-first search engine in Austria, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

Mozilla says the two companies are working to contribute to a more open and inclusive web.

Together, Mozilla, Firefox and Ecosia are contributing to a web that is more open and inclusive, but above all — one where you can make an informed choice about what tech you use and why. Your tech choices make a difference.

As Firefox and Mozilla continue to champion user empowerment and innovation, we invite you to join us in shaping a web that makes the world better. Together, let’s make a positive impact — one search at a time.

Firefox currently ships with Google as the default web browser, but that arrangement is under threat by the Google’s antitrust loss. One of the issues the DOJ focused on was Google’s deal with Mozilla to pay it hundreds of millions per year to remain the default Firefox search engine. Mozilla has been vocal in its opposition to the DOJ’s efforts to prohibit Google from making such deals, saying it will hurt Firefox, as well as other independent browsers.

Despite Mozilla’s opposition to the DOJ derailing its deal with Google, the Ecosia deal would seem to indicate the organization is hedging its bets.

A key element of the DOJ’s case against Google hinged on the company’s exclusivity deals, including its deal for Apple to make Google the default in its Safari web browser. Apple made roughly $20 billion from the deal in 2022 alone, but Cue says (via Reuters)the company also has deals with the other available search engines in Safari.

In exchange for distributing Google Search on Apple devices, Google shares with Apple a percentage of the revenue generated from Apple users’ search queries. In 2022, Google paid Apple roughly $20 billion under this deal. Apple also has revenue sharing agreements with other search engines listed above that provide them access to Apple customers’ search queries on the Safari address bar.

Under the DOJ’s proposed remedy, Google would be barred from making any such search deal with Apple for at least 10 years. Similarly, the remedy would prevent Apple and Google from entering any number of other deals, especially in the realm of AI.

Cue goes on to say that the DOJ’s remedy would put Apple in an impossible position, forced to choose between what its customers want and giving Google free access to their data.

If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple’s users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari. But because customers prefer Google, removing it as an option would harm both Apple and its customers.

On the Question of An Apple Search Engine

Cue points out that the DOJ likely believes that prohibiting a search deal between the two companies would lead to Apple developing its own search engine, a proposition which Cue firmly denies.

From what I understand, Plaintiffs’ proposed remedies assume that, without a revenue sharing agreement or other commercial terms with Google, Apple would develop its own search engine or enter the Search Text Ad market. Apple witnesses can offer testimony and evidence explaining why that assumption is wrong. That evidence would cover the challenges Apple would face in entering the search engine market, the reasons why Apple has so far chosen not to develop a search engine, and why it is unlikely that Apple will decide to create a search engine in the future, regardless of what remedies are ordered in this case.

Cue lists three specific reasons why Apple will not develop its own search engine.

• First, Apple is focused on other growth areas. The development of a search engine would require diverting both capital investment and employees because creating a search engine would cost billions of dollars and take many years.
• Second, search is rapidly evolving due to recent and ongoing developments in Artificial Intelligence. That makes it economically risky to devote the huge resources that would be required to create a search engine.
• And third, a viable search engine would require building a platform to sell targeted advertising, which is not a core business of Apple. Apple does not have the volume of specialized professionals and significant operational infrastructure needed to build and run a successful search advertising business. Although Apple does have some niche advertising, such as on the App Store platform, search advertising is different and outside of Apple’s core expertise. Building a search advertising business would also need to be balanced against Apple’s longstanding privacy commitments.

Opposition to the DOJ’s Remedies Continues to Mount

Apple is not alone in its concerns with the DOJ’s remedy. Mozilla has similarly voiced its concerns, saying a prohibition on Google’s striking search deals will negatively impact the independent browser market, including Firefox.

Ultimately, both Mozilla and Cue are right. Google currently pays hundreds of millions of dollars per year to Mozilla to help fund the independent browser maker in exchange for being the default search engine in Firefox. If Google is prohibited from making such deals, more than 80% of Mozilla’s revenue disappears overnight. Similarly, if Google is forced to sell Chrome, it will have less incentive to help fund a smaller competitor to assuage antitrust concerns—concerns that will no longer be a factor if Google doesn’t have a browser of its own.

Similarly, Apple clearly has no intention of making its own search engine, regardless of whether it has a deal with Google or not, and the government cannot force Apple to make one.

The Other Side of the Argument

At the same time, Google critics argue that if the company’s ability to make exclusive search deals was curtailed, it would finally give competing search engines a fighting chance, on equal footing with Google.

While Google likes to say that it provides the best search results, many would argue that those days are in the company’s rearview mirror. Between AI-generated results, the explosion of ads in search results, and the company’s deal with Reddit, many feel that Google has lost its edge. If that truly is the case, prohibiting the company from having exclusivity deals could well level the playing field and allow better options a fighting chance.

Either way, the growing opposition to the DOJ’s proposed remedies—from outside Google—illustrates the complexities of the case and the challenges involved in finding a solution.

The DOJ has proposed that Google be forced to sell its Chrome web browser, and possibly its Android operating system. The DOJ has also proposed limitations on Google’s ability to invest in, or collaborate with, other AI companies. Under the proposal, Google would not be allowed to acquire, collaborate with, or invest in any firm that develops AI or uses the technology in query-based tools.

Kent Walker, Chief Legal Officer, slams the DOJ’s proposal as an “interventionist agenda” that goes far beyond establish court precedent.

As part of its lawsuit over how we distribute Search, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a staggering proposal that seeks dramatic changes to Google services.

DOJ had a chance to propose remedies related to the issue in this case: search distribution agreements with Apple, Mozilla, smartphone OEMs, and wireless carriers.

Instead, DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership. DOJ’s wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court’s decision. It would break a range of Google products — even beyond Search — that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives.

Google’s Proposal

Google’s Lee-Ann Mulholland, VP or Regulatory Affairs, has authored a blog post that similarly comes out swinging against the DOJ’s proposal, calling it “overbroad,” and promising that Google will appeal the court’s decision.

We will appeal the Court’s decision but the process requires that we first file proposed remedies. This is a case about contracts. Antitrust law is clear that remedies should be directed to those contracts, unlike DOJ’s overbroad proposal.

While Google plans to appeal, before it can do so, it must file its own remedies proposal, which Mulholland goes on to outline.

Browser agreements:

• Browser companies like Apple and Mozilla should continue to have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users. The Court accepted that browser companies “occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.” And for companies like Mozilla, these contracts generate vital revenue.
• Our proposal allows browsers to continue to offer Google Search to their users and earn revenue from that partnership. But it also provides them with additional flexibility: It would allow for multiple default agreements across different platforms (e.g., a different default search engine for iPhones and iPads) and browsing modes, plus the ability to change their default search provider at least every 12 months (the court’s decision specifically referred to a 12 month agreement as “presumed reasonable” under antitrust law).

Android contracts:

• Our proposal means device makers have additional flexibility in preloading multiple search engines, and preloading any Google app independently of preloading Search or Chrome. Again, this will give our partners additional flexibility and our rivals like Microsoft more chances to bid for placement.

Oversight and compliance:

• Our proposal includes a robust mechanism to ensure we comply with the Court’s order without giving the Government extensive power over the design of your online experience.

Mozilla Weighs In

Mozilla—maker of the Firefox web browser and strong privacy proponent—has weighed in on the DOJ’s proposal with concerns of its own. Mozilla derives the bulk of its revenue from Google, in exchange for making its search engine the default in Firefox. Ironically, the deal is one of the things the DOJ made an issue of in its court case.

In [a blog post](So how do browser engines tie into the search litigation? A key concern centers on proposed contractual remedies put forward by the DOJ that could harm the ability of independent browsers to fund their operations. Such remedies risk inadvertently harming browser and browser engine competition without meaningfully advancing search engine competition.

Firefox and other independent browsers represent a small proportion of U.S. search queries, but they play an outsized role in providing consumers with meaningful choices and protecting user privacy. These browsers are not just alternatives — they are critical champions of consumer interests and technological innovation.

Rather than a world where market share is moved from one trillion dollar tech company to another, we would like to see actions which will truly improve competition — and not sacrifice people’s privacy to achieve it. True change requires addressing the barriers to competition and facilitating a marketplace that promotes competition, innovation and consumer choice — in search engines, browsers, browser engines and beyond.

We urge the court to consider remedies that achieve its goals without harming independent browsers, browser engines and ultimately without harming the web.), Mozilla acknowledges that it receives revenue from Google, but says the deal actually helps Mozilla achieve its goals. Mozilla also says that it partners with Google because it’s the best option, something Mozilla discovered after working with other search engines.

For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the U.S. because it provides the best search experience for our users. We can say this because we have tried other search defaults and supported competitors in search: in 2014, we switched from Google to Yahoo in the U.S. as they sought to reinvigorate their search product. There were certainly business risks, but we felt the risk was worth it to further our mission of promoting a better internet ecosystem. However, that decision proved to be unsuccessful.

Firefox users — who demonstrated a strong preference for having Google as the default search engine — did not find Yahoo’s product up to their expectations. When we renewed our search partnership in 2017, we did so with Google. We again made certain that the agreement was non-exclusive and allowed us to promote a range of search choices to people.

The connection between browsers and search that existed in 2004 is just as important today. Independent browsers like Firefox remain a place where search engines can compete and users can choose freely between them. And the search revenue Firefox generates is used to advance our manifesto, through the work of the Mozilla Foundation and via our products — including Gecko, Mozilla’s browser engine.

Mozilla then goes on to voice its concerns about the DOJ’s proposed remedies, saying they risk doing far more harm than good, especially to independent browsers.

So how do browser engines tie into the search litigation? A key concern centers on proposed contractual remedies put forward by the DOJ that could harm the ability of independent browsers to fund their operations. Such remedies risk inadvertently harming browser and browser engine competition without meaningfully advancing search engine competition.

Firefox and other independent browsers represent a small proportion of U.S. search queries, but they play an outsized role in providing consumers with meaningful choices and protecting user privacy. These browsers are not just alternatives — they are critical champions of consumer interests and technological innovation.

Rather than a world where market share is moved from one trillion dollar tech company to another, we would like to see actions which will truly improve competition — and not sacrifice people’s privacy to achieve it. True change requires addressing the barriers to competition and facilitating a marketplace that promotes competition, innovation and consumer choice — in search engines, browsers, browser engines and beyond.

We urge the court to consider remedies that achieve its goals without harming independent browsers, browser engines and ultimately without harming the web.

Conclusion

There’s no denying that Google has a monopoly over the search market, and it’s hard to argue that the company uses exclusivity deals to maintain the dominance it enjoys.

At the same time, Mozilla’s argument is not without merit. If the court prohibits Google from making such deals, Mozilla stands to lose the most, as it will lose out on hundreds of millions per year in revenue—revenue the organization uses to further its pro-privacy efforts.

The issue highlights the challenges involved in addressing Google’s dominance in a way that doesn’t make the situation far worse than it already is.

Sites like Forbes Advisor saw their rankings plummet in recent weeks. Changes to how Google handles site reputation abuse is the reason, with the search giant cracking down on sites that abuse their status to push unrelated content.

The company clarified exactly what qualifies as site reputation abuse in a new FAQ.

This is a tactic where third-party content is published on a host site in an attempt to take advantage of the host’s already-established ranking signals. The goal of this tactic is for the content to rank better than it could otherwise on a different site, and leads to a bad search experience for users.

Google acknowledges there are some situations in which there may be first-party involvement, but that it doesn’t fundamentally change site reputation abuse.

Since launching the policy, we’ve reviewed situations where there might be varying degrees of first-party involvement, such as cooperation with white-label services, licensing agreements, partial ownership agreements, and other complex business arrangements. Our evaluation of numerous cases has shown that no amount of first-party involvement alters the fundamental third-party nature of the content or the unfair, exploitative nature of attempting to take advantage of the host’s sites ranking signals.

The company says it takes a number of factors into consideration when evaluating a site, and that not all third-party content abuses the new policy.

When evaluating for policy violations, we take into account many different considerations (and we don’t simply take a site’s claims about how the content was produced at face value) to determine if third-party content is being used in an abusive way. Site owners who receive a spam manual action will be notified through their registered Search Console account and can submit a reconsideration request.

It’s important to note that not all third-party content violates this policy. We go into detail on our spam policies page about what is and isn’t site reputation abuse.

Google provides further clarification in the FAQ section of the document.

What is third-party content?

Third-party content is content created by a separate entity than the host site. Examples of separate entities include users of that site, freelancers, white-label services, content created by people not employed directly by the host site, and other examples listed in the site reputation policy.

Does the use of any third-party content violate the site reputation abuse policy?

No, having third-party content alone is not a violation of the site reputation abuse policy. It’s only a violation if the content is being published in an attempt to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site’s ranking signals. Our policy page has examples of third-party content use that doesn’t violate the policy.

Does freelance content violate the site reputation abuse policy?

No, while freelance content is third-party content, freelance content alone is not a violation of the site reputation abuse policy. It is only a violation if there is ALSO an attempt to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site’s ranking signals.

Does affiliate content violate the site reputation abuse policy?

No, the policy is not about targeting affiliate content. The documentation about the policy notes that affiliate links marked appropriately aren’t considered site reputation abuse.

Ultimately, Google provides a succinct explanation of exactly what constitutes site reputation abuse.

This is when third-party content is being placed on an established site to take advantage of that site’s ranking signals — which the site has earned primarily from its first party content — rather than placing the content on a separate site that lacks the same signals.

Google’s FAQ provides some much-needed clarity to its updated policy, while at the same time promoting a more fair internet where smaller sites don’t have to compete against giants in niche markets.

Despite being one of its prime competitors in the AI field, Google has invested heavily in Anthropic. Google initially invested $300 million in the AI startup before announcing it would invest an additional $2 billion.

Bloomberg reports the DOJ, and involved attorneys general, are recommending that Google’s ability to invest or collaborate with other AI firms being strictly curtailed. Under the proposal, the company would not be able to invest in, acquire, or collaborate with other AI firms, or any firm that uses AI in query-based products. The outlet says the measure is specifically aimed at Google’s Anthropic investment.

There’s still much that will play in to a final decision regarding any measures that will or will not be taken against Google, not the least of which is the incoming Trump administration. Nonetheless, the DOJ is making clear that it intends to do whatever is necessary to address Google’s monopoly.

It’s not uncommon for websites like Forbes Advisor, as well as many others, to push content that has nothing to do with the site’s core business. Google is updating its site reputation abuse policy in an effort to put an end to the practice.

The company outlined the changes in a developer blog post, detailing the various layers of the issue.

Earlier this year, as part of our work to fight spam and deliver a great Search experience, we launched a spam policy to combat site reputation abuse. This is a tactic where third-party content is published on a host site in an attempt to take advantage of the host’s already-established ranking signals. The goal of this tactic is for the content to rank better than it could otherwise on a different site, and leads to a bad search experience for users.

Since launching the policy, we’ve reviewed situations where there might be varying degrees of first-party involvement, such as cooperation with white-label services, licensing agreements, partial ownership agreements, and other complex business arrangements. Our evaluation of numerous cases has shown that no amount of first-party involvement alters the fundamental third-party nature of the content or the unfair, exploitative nature of attempting to take advantage of the host’s sites ranking signals.

As a result, the company is changing its policy language to address the behavior.

We’re clarifying our policy language to further target this type of spammy behavior. We’re making it clear that using third-party content on a site in an attempt to exploit the site’s ranking signals is a violation of this policy — regardless of whether there is first-party involvement or oversight of the content. Our updated policy language, effective today, is:

Site reputation abuse is the practice of publishing third-party pages on a site in an attempt to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site’s ranking signals.

Google says it is not applying the new policy haphazardly, but taking multiple factors into consideration.

When evaluating for policy violations, we take into account many different considerations (and we don’t simply take a site’s claims about how the content was produced at face value) to determine if third-party content is being used in an abusive way. Site owners who receive a spam manual action will be notified through their registered Search Console account and can submit a reconsideration request.

It’s important to note that not all third-party content violates this policy. We go into detail on our spam policies page about what is and isn’t site reputation abuse.

Users and companies alike have been vocal about Google’s declining search quality. Once offering unrivaled search results, Google Search results are a far cry from the quality they once were. Hopefully, the company’s latest effort will result in higher quality results and a more level playing field.

Google’s President of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer, Kent Walker, didn’t mince words in his response, describing the DOJ’s demands as a “staggering proposal” that could cause considerable harm to American technology. He argued that instead of focusing narrowly on resolving concerns around search distribution agreements with key partners such as Apple, Mozilla, smartphone manufacturers, and wireless carriers, the DOJ has opted for a sweeping overhaul that targets Google’s core products and services.

Listen to our chat on Google’s reaction to the DOJ’s “radical interventionist” proposal:

“DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership,” Walker stated in a blog post addressing the recent developments. He characterized the proposed measures as far beyond the purview of the court’s earlier decision, portraying them as a reckless intervention that could disrupt consumer experiences and compromise the quality of products that people depend on in their daily lives.

The DOJ’s Proposal: A Threat to Consumer Experience?

According to Google, the DOJ’s demands could mean fundamental changes to a variety of its popular services, with potential implications not only for the company’s bottom line but for the experience of millions of users. Walker listed a number of particularly alarming facets of the DOJ’s proposal, including the forced sale of Chrome, Google’s widely-used browser, and potentially Android, the dominant smartphone operating system.

“This extreme proposal would endanger the security and privacy of millions of Americans,” said Walker. “It would undermine the quality of products people love by forcing the sale of Chrome and potentially Android. This goes beyond regulation — it’s about breaking apart products that help people every day.”

Google is also concerned about the ramifications for data privacy. The DOJ’s remedy would require the disclosure of Google’s proprietary innovations to “unknown foreign and domestic companies.” Even more worrying to Walker is the requirement to disclose users’ personal search queries. “This could create vulnerabilities that foreign actors could exploit,” he warned, suggesting that such measures would expose sensitive information without offering any apparent consumer benefit.

A Chilling Effect on AI and Innovation

Beyond the direct impact on Google’s current services, Walker also expressed concerns that the DOJ’s demands could have a chilling effect on future innovations. Artificial intelligence, often described as the most important technology of this generation, is an area where Google has made major investments and led substantial advancements. According to Walker, the DOJ’s intervention would severely disrupt these efforts.

“Chilling our investment in artificial intelligence — perhaps the most important innovation of our time — is not just a setback for Google,” said Walker. “It’s a setback for America. This is a time when the United States should be enhancing its leadership in global technology, not deliberately hobbling it.”

The Choice Screen Controversy

One particular provision in the DOJ’s proposal that Google singled out as emblematic of its overreach is a mandate that Google must include two separate “choice screens” before users can access Google Search on a Pixel phone. These screens are intended to let consumers choose alternative search engines, but Google argues that they will ultimately lead to a confusing and cumbersome user experience.

“As just one example, DOJ’s proposal would literally require us to install not one but two separate choice screens before you could access Google Search on a Pixel phone you bought,” Walker said. “And the design of those choice screens would have to be approved by a government-appointed ‘Technical Committee.’ We wish we were making this up.”

Google’s critique here is that such micromanagement could deter users who are seeking fast and seamless technology. As the company has pointed out, its products are popular precisely because they are intuitive and reliable. Such bureaucratic intervention, Walker argues, would introduce unnecessary complexity that benefits neither the consumer nor the industry.

Implications for American Technological Leadership

Google’s executives argue that the DOJ’s actions come at a particularly precarious time for American tech. With competition from global players like China in full swing, they assert that now is the moment for the U.S. to leverage its innovation, not stifle it.

“DOJ’s approach would result in unprecedented government overreach that would harm American consumers, developers, and small businesses — and jeopardize America’s global economic and technological leadership at precisely the moment it’s needed most,” Walker contended.

Google highlighted that this could impact not just their own business, but also key partners who depend on Google’s presence. Services like Mozilla’s Firefox rely on deals with Google for search placement to maintain their operations. Should Google be forced to divest key assets or comply with burdensome regulation, the ripple effects could be felt widely across the tech ecosystem.

A Long Road Ahead

The company acknowledges that this legal battle is still in its early stages, with a long road ahead. “We’re still at the early stages of a long process and many of these demands are clearly far afield from what even the Court’s order contemplated,” said Walker. Google has indicated that it will file its own counterproposals next month, aiming to address the concerns around competition while preserving what it sees as necessary aspects of its technology ecosystem.

Walker ended by emphasizing that Google’s search engine offers “the industry’s highest quality,” a statement reflecting both the company’s confidence and its insistence that market dominance has been earned through consumer trust and product quality, not through anti-competitive tactics.

What’s Next for Tech Regulation?

This escalating conflict between Google and the DOJ highlights the broader debate about the role of government in regulating Big Tech. While consumer advocates argue for increased oversight to foster competition, tech companies insist that the U.S. risks stymying innovation and ceding leadership to global rivals if it mismanages regulation.

As this high-profile legal confrontation unfolds, the outcome will likely set a precedent for how far regulators can go in reining in tech giants. For now, the future of American tech leadership hangs in the balance — caught between ambitious government intervention and the companies that argue they are leading America into the next great technological frontier.

The DOJ prosecuted—and won—its case against Google, with the court concluding that Google was an illegal monopoly that used its position to dominate the search market. The DOJ made clear that all options were on the table remedial options were on the table, including breakup up the company.

According to a report by Bloomberg, via Reuters, the DOJ is recommending that Google be forced to sell its Chrome web browser. On the surface, the proposal makes a lot of sense for several reasons.

• Google Search is the dominant search engine, while Chrome is the dominant web browser by far. Owning Chrome gives Google an incredibly effective way to drive users to its search engine, making it that much harder for others to compete.
• A web browser is one of the most important pieces of software, in terms of protecting user privacy. Very few applications have access to more personal user data and habits than a browser. As a result, it is patently antithetical for a company that depends on advertising for the bulk of its income to also be entrusted with creating, maintaining, and securing a web browser, as well as ensuring that browser provides the best privacy protections.
• Being in control of the dominant search engine and web browser gives Google an inordinate amount of power of the very nature of the internet, including which protocols get adopted, which die off, and which ones further its own business interests.

Requiring Google to sell Chrome would address all of these issues, and force Google to compete on the merits of its products, not on the control it exerts over the internet.

As Bloomberg’s report makes clear, the DOJ reserves the right to readdress a potential sale of Chrome at a later date, depending on what other measures are taken and how effective they are. It’s possible other measures will achieve the desired result, eliminating the need to force a sale of Chrome.

One of the other possibilities is forcing Google to sell Android. Much like Chrome and the web, Android dominates the global smartphone market. With its deep integration with Google services, including Google Search, Android serves as another key funnel, pushing users further into the company’s ecosystem.

Google has been working to integrate AI with its search, eager to tap stave off competition from AI firms like OpenAI and Perplexity. AI Overviews are an important part of that strategy.

With AI Overviews in Search, it’s easier than ever for people to find the information they need and discover relevant sites across the web, which opens up more opportunities to connect with publishers, businesses and creators.

The company has launched its biggest expansion yet, bringing the feature to more than 100 countries.

Since launching in May and expanding beyond the U.S. in August, the feedback we’ve received for AI Overviews has been highly positive. People prefer using Search with AI Overviews, and they find their search results more helpful.

So now, in our largest expansion yet, we’re launching AI Overviews in more than 100 countries and making them accessible in more languages — helping you search in a whole new way, no matter what questions are on your mind.

Google says it has made improvements to AI Overviews, making it easier to find relevant websites and better connecting people with helpful products.

Helping people discover content from publishers, businesses and creators remains central to our approach with AI Overviews in Search. Since May, we’ve introduced more prominent ways to show links to relevant websites within AI Overviews, with a right-hand link display on desktop and a similar experience on mobile, accessible by tapping the site icons in the upper right. And earlier this month, we launched in-line links that appear directly within the text of AI Overviews. In our testing, these updates drove an increase in traffic to supporting websites compared to the previous designs.

As always, ads will continue to appear in dedicated slots throughout the page, with clear labeling to distinguish between organic and sponsored results. And as we shared earlier this month, ads in AI Overviews are now available on relevant queries for mobile users in the U.S., so we can better connect people with the products and brands that are helpful to their searches.

News broke in late July that OpenAI was working on its own search engine, called SearchGPT, using AI to challenge Google’s core business. The company says it took the feedback it received from beta testers and has rolled the SearchGPT experience into ChatGPT.

Plus and Team users will see a search icon in their ChatGPT dialog boxes, whether on using it via the web, desktop, or mobile app. While users can manually click the search button, ChatGPT will choose to respond via the method it deems best by default.

Getting useful answers on the web can take a lot of effort. It often requires multiple searches and digging through links to find quality sources and the right information for you.

Now, chat can get you to a better answer: Ask a question in a more natural, conversational way, and ChatGPT can choose to respond with information from the web. Go deeper with follow-up questions, and ChatGPT will consider the full context of your chat to get a better answer for you.

As part of ChatGPT’s search results, OpenAI has partnered with various data and news providers to provide more visually appealing results for some categories, such as maps, news, sports, stocks, and weather.

Continuing its efforts to improve the reliability and credibility of AI results, ChatGPT will now provide sources for where it is getting its information from, making it much easier to verify the accuracy of the results.

Chats now include links to sources, such as news articles and blog posts, giving you a way to learn more. Click the Sources button below the response to open a sidebar with the references.

ChatGPT search connects people with original, high-quality content from the web and makes it part of their conversation. By integrating search with a chat interface, users can engage with information in a new way, while content owners gain new opportunities to reach a broader audience. We hope to help users discover publishers and websites, while bringing more choice to search.

“We are convinced that AI search will be, in a near future and for the next generations, a primary way to access information, and partnering with OpenAI positions Le Monde at the forefront of this shift,” Louis Dreyfus, CEO & Publisher of Le Monde. “It allows us to test innovations at an early stage while safeguarding journalism’s core values and integrity.”

“As AI reshapes the media landscape, Axel Springer’s partnership with OpenAI opens up tremendous opportunities for innovative advancements,” said Mathias Sanchez, SVP Global Strategic Partnerships Axel Springer SE. “Together, we’re driving new business models that ensure journalism remains both trustworthy and profitable.”

The company says it will continue to improve ChatGPT search, including bringing the experience to Advanced Voice and canvas.

The search model is a fine-tuned version of GPT-4o, post-trained using novel synthetic data generation techniques, including distilling outputs from OpenAI o1-preview. ChatGPT search leverages third-party search providers, as well as content provided directly by our partners, to provide the information users are looking for. Learn more here⁠(opens in a new window).

Thanks to feedback from the SearchGPT prototype, we brought the best of the SearchGPT experience into ChatGPT. We plan to keep improving search, particularly in areas like shopping and travel, and leverage the reasoning capabilities of the OpenAI o1 series to do deeper research. We also plan to bring our new search experience to Advanced Voice and canvas, as well as to Free and logged out users in the future.

Upending the Search Market

Industry experts believe ChatGPT search represents the greatest threat Google has ever faced, and will fundamentally change how users interact with online information.

“This is huge news in the search world. ChatGPT is probably best positioned amongst all competitors to upset Google’s dominance in search, and aspects of the new interface, such as ‘visual answers,’ appear to be innovative and potentially disruptive,” Damian Rollison, SOCi’s director of market insights, said in a statement to WPN. “However, of all areas for ChatGPT to compete with Google, search is the one where Google’s power as an incumbent with a 26-year head start is strongest.

“The early results of Bing search integrated into ChatGPT have been shaky, and the incredibly complex requirements of maintaining a world-class search platform tap into areas of expertise where OpenAI has yet to demonstrate its capabilities,” Rollison continued. “Probably, the success of SearchGPT will hinge on its bringing a different approach to the search experience that users find truly refreshing and new.”

Alon Yamin, co-founder and CEO of Copyleaks, says ChatGPT search underscores the need for the industry to continue to develop ways to authenticate content and provide a way to differentiate between human and AI-generated content.

“OpenAI’s integration of real-time search into ChatGPT marks yet another significant shift in how we interact with online information in the age of AI,” Yamin explained in a statement to WPN. “In July, OpenAI shared that they were prototyping a search feature that could compete with Google, Microsoft, and Perplexity, so it was only a matter of time before it arrived on the market. Undoubtedly, the new search capabilities will impact traditional search engines. Yet, it remains to be seen how it will affect the SEO landscape, which Google has been king of for so long, and how organizations and marketing teams will have to pivot in response to those changes.

“It also underscores a crucial point long emphasized at Copyleaks- the growing importance of content authenticity and verification in an AI-powered world,” Yamin added. “As AI tools become more sophisticated and part of our day-to-day lives, distinguishing between AI-generated and human-created content, properly attributing original sources or authors, and empowering overall originality becomes even more critical. This is precisely where the focus needs to remain – providing robust content integrity solutions that are evolving alongside the demands of the AI landscape.”

Thanks to its recent court loss in its antitrust trial, Google’s position is weaker than it ever has been. OpenAI may have taken the first step toward ending the search giant’s dominance.

According to Reuters, Meta wants to end its reliance on Google Search and Microsoft Bing, tapping AI to serve as the basis of its own search engine. The company aims to provide conversational answers to users via its WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram apps. In contrast, the company currently relies on its competitors’ search engines to provide answers when its users search for things.

Meta is not the only company to be exploring a search venture. OpenAI has been working on its SearchGPT search engine, powered by its ChatGPT AI model. Similarly, after years of relying on Microsoft Bing to power its search, Yahoo has been once again teasing a return to the search engine market. Brave, the maker of the so-named web browser, has its own independent search engine, and DuckDuckGo is a long-time player in the market.

Google was once the undisputed king of search, and it still retains that crown, but it’s showing signs of weakness that would have been unheard of just a few years ago. The company recently lost its antitrust case, with the court ruling the company “is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”

With the government considering a number of possible options, including a breakup of the company, Google is more vulnerable than ever. Combined with the power of AI, and its ability to provide answers outside of a traditional search, companies seen an opportunity to challenge Google that never existed before.

Meta clearly sees such an opportunity and is wasting no time seizing it.

In recent years, many sites have turned have tried (successfully) to game the system by including a wide range of articles on high-performing topics, even if those topics have nothing to do with the main content of the site. For example, CNET, a site traditionally focused on computers and tech, is currently featuring an article on the benefits of apple cider vinegar. Some of the biggest names in tech websites have similar content that has virtually nothing to do with the site’s main focus.

First spotted by Glenn Gabe, an SEO consultant, sites are seeing precipitous drops in their rankings for content outside their main focus. Impacted sites include Forbes Advisor, APNews Byline, Time Stamped, Marketwatch Guides, WSJ Buyside, and CNN Underscored.

Despite fears it was testing its ‘Site reputation abuse’ algorithm, Google’s Danny Sullivan reached out to Gabe, saying Google was not testing the algorithm yet. He went on to explain what is happening.

“Our systems aim to understand if a section of a site is independent or starkly different from the main content of the site. This helps us surface the most useful information from a range of sites.”

Gabe goes on to give his take.

My thoughts: So it seems Google is improving its systems for understanding when content located in subdomains or subfolders is “independent or starkly different from the main content of the site.” This is super-important to understand and I’m glad Google shared that with me.

This development is an important one for companies and organizations to understand as they develop their content strategies.

Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled Google was an illegal monopoly in August 2024, dealing the company the worst legal blow it has suffered in its history. There are a slew of possible remedies the government may pursue in its efforts to reign Google in, including prohibiting it from entering into exclusionary search deals, forcing it to share data with competitors, and restrict its ability to incorporate AI in its search business. The most extreme option, however, is a complete breakup of the company, forcing it to sell of parts that contribute to Google’s control of the search industry, most notably Android, Chrome, and its advertising business.

In a court filing (courtesy of Vox), the DOJ makes clear it is considering asking the court to do just that, along with a number of other possible remedies.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are considering remedies that would limit or end Google’s use of contracts, monopoly profits, and other tools to control or influence longstanding and emerging distribution channels and search-related products (e.g., browsers, search apps, artificial intelligence summaries and agents). For example, Plaintiffs are evaluating remedies that would, among other things, limit or prohibit default agreements, preinstallation agreements, and other revenue-sharing arrangements related to search and search-related products, potentially with or without the use ofa choice screen.

Similarly, Plaintiffs are considering behavioral and structural remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features—including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence—overrivals or new entrants. Such consideration is faithful to the Court’s findings. As the Court recognized, Google’s longstanding control of the Chrome browser, with its preinstalled Google search default, “significantly narrows the available channelsofdistribution and thus disincentivizes the emergenceof new competition.” Mem. Op. at 159. “[T]he Google Play Store is a must-have on all Android devices,” id. at 210; and the Android Agreements are, of course,a ertical tool for Google’s anticompetitive limitations on distribution.

The key words in those paragraphs are “considering behavioral and structural remedies…” That statement makes clear that the DOJ is considering asking for a breakup of the company.

The Google antitrust case is the single biggest case since the US government sued Microsoft decades ago. In many ways, the case against Google is even more high-stakes, given how ubiquitous the company’s products—especially search—are to people around the world.

If the DOJ pushes for a breakup, and Judge Mehta agrees with the recommendation, the result could be a fundamental change to the very nature of search and the internet.

This shift marks a critical inflection point for the industry, as AI-powered search may soon redefine how users engage with information and how advertisers reach their audiences.

Tune in to our chat on Google’s new rival: AI search is finally bringing real competition!

Perplexity: AI’s Answer to Search

Among the emerging challengers to Google’s dominance is Perplexity, an AI-driven search startup backed by Jeff Bezos. Perplexity aims to transform how people search for information by offering AI-generated answers to user queries. Unlike Google’s traditional approach, which presents users with a list of links to comb through, Perplexity delivers concise, conversational responses, effectively simplifying the search process and saving users time. This is a marked departure from the standard search model and represents the kind of user-centric, straightforward experience that a growing segment of consumers is demanding.

According to Dmitry Shevelenko , Perplexity’s chief business officer, the company plans to introduce advertisements later this month that will be subtly integrated within user interactions. Rather than inserting ads directly into search results, Perplexity will allow brands to sponsor follow-up questions, encouraging an ongoing conversation between the user and the AI. “What we’re opening up is the ability for a brand to spark or inspire somebody to ask a question about them,” Shevelenko told The Wall Street Journal. This conversational model has the potential to differentiate Perplexity from both traditional and AI-driven competitors by seamlessly weaving promotional content into a natural dialogue, making ads less intrusive and more informative.

Perplexity Making Its Mark!

Perplexity has already begun to make its mark, with The Wall Street Journal reporting that the platform processed 340 million queries in September alone. While this number is modest compared to Google’s staggering two trillion annual searches, it signals the growing interest in alternatives to conventional search engines. Shevelenko noted that Perplexity’s approach to search is fundamentally different from Google’s, particularly in how it handles advertiser influence. Perplexity has made it clear that it will not alter its non-sponsored answers to accommodate advertisers, maintaining a level of transparency and neutrality that has increasingly become a rarity in the ad-driven search space.

This focus on transparency is designed to appeal to users who are frustrated by the commercial nature of existing search engines. Many users, as reflected in The Wall Street Journal‘s comment section, have voiced dissatisfaction with Google’s tendency to prioritize sponsored content and perceived biases in search results. By contrast, Perplexity aims to provide straightforward, unbiased answers—a promise that could make it a popular choice among those who value authenticity and neutrality in their search experience.

A More Personalized Search Experience

Perplexity is also working to create a more personalized search experience through ongoing conversational engagement. The company’s strategy involves using AI not just to answer questions but to anticipate user needs by analyzing the context of the conversation. This allows the platform to offer relevant information proactively, potentially transforming the one-off nature of traditional searches into a more dynamic, interactive experience. Shevelenko believes this will set Perplexity apart: “Our mission is not just to provide answers but to engage users in a meaningful way that feels natural and adds value beyond the initial query.”

The startup is still in its early stages, but it’s clear that Perplexity is positioning itself as a viable competitor in a market long dominated by a single player. By focusing on conversational AI, transparency, and user-centric design, Perplexity aims to carve out a niche for itself, especially among users who are disillusioned with the heavily monetized and link-heavy experience offered by traditional search engines. As the digital advertising landscape evolves, Perplexity’s unique approach could very well push the boundaries of what users expect from search—making it not just an alternative to Google, but a different kind of search experience altogether.

Will AI Replace Traditional Search?

The rise of artificial intelligence is challenging the very foundation of what search engines have been for decades. The emergence of AI-powered search alternatives like Perplexity, ChatGPT, Grok, and even Google’s own Gemini Search suggests we are at a potential turning point in how people access information online. While Google has long been synonymous with “search,” the landscape is shifting, and questions arise about whether AI can replace traditional search engines or even make them obsolete.

The Promise of AI-Driven Search Engines

Perplexity, an AI-powered search platform backed by Jeff Bezos, has positioned itself as a new kind of search experience—one that focuses on providing concise, AI-generated answers rather than a list of blue links. Perplexity allows users to get an answer to their question directly, making it ideal for people who are tired of sifting through pages of search results. The platform also offers advertisers an opportunity to sponsor follow-up questions, which could create a new kind of engagement-driven advertising. According to Dmitry Shevelenko, Perplexity’s chief business officer, they aim to “spark or inspire somebody to ask a question about them,” marking a shift away from traditional ads to more conversational engagements.

But Perplexity isn’t alone. Other AI alternatives like OpenAI’s ChatGPT are also making waves. ChatGPT, for instance, has a massive user base, partly because of its diverse applications beyond just search—ranging from coding assistance to creative writing. This versatility has positioned ChatGPT as a formidable competitor in the broader AI ecosystem, and its ability to generate nuanced responses that sound conversational adds to its appeal as a search alternative. Moreover, with backing from Microsoft, OpenAI has the resources to keep iterating and expanding the scope of what ChatGPT can offer.

Elon Musk’s entry into the AI search arena comes in the form of Grok, an AI tool linked directly to X (formerly Twitter). Grok has been described by some as “the free speech search engine,” appealing to users frustrated with perceived political bias in existing platforms. Musk has hinted at integrating Grok into a broader ecosystem that might challenge Google directly, especially among users looking for alternatives to what they view as politically curated results. The appeal of Grok lies in its positioning as an independent, less censored search tool—a feature that could be increasingly attractive to specific audiences disillusioned with the current offerings.

Google’s AI Response: Gemini Search

Google has not been passive amid this growing competition. Recognizing the demand for AI-powered solutions, Google has rolled out its own AI-driven offering, Gemini Search, which is already integrated into Google Search results. Gemini aims to enhance user experience by summarizing the most relevant information at the top of the search page, effectively doing some of the sifting for the user. According to Google executives, this shift is part of a broader strategy to retain its dominance while catering to a growing preference for AI-driven summaries.

Gemini’s integration into Google Search might present a substantial barrier for smaller AI startups like Perplexity. Google still commands an enormous user base, and Gemini’s seamless integration means that users do not need to navigate away from Google to get AI-enhanced search experiences. In contrast, Perplexity and similar startups are fighting an uphill battle to get users to switch their default habits. Google’s established credibility, brand loyalty, and superior reach are formidable assets that could make it challenging for alternatives to carve out significant market share.

A Battle of Resources and Reach

The competitive landscape in AI-driven search will ultimately come down to two major factors: user base and resources. Google, OpenAI, and Musk’s Grok each have distinct advantages. Google, with its integration of Gemini, benefits from the vast infrastructure and data it has accumulated over decades. This allows for a hybrid approach, blending traditional search and AI-generated content, which may appeal to users who are comfortable with the status quo but are curious about AI’s potential.

ChatGPT, meanwhile, benefits from its existing, massive user base, which uses the platform not only for search but for myriad other purposes. OpenAI’s partnership with Microsoft provides a deep well of funding, ensuring that it can continue to innovate and improve the platform. Microsoft’s own integration of AI into Bing through ChatGPT has already started to make small inroads, particularly among users looking for alternatives to Google’s advertising-heavy model.

Grok, although newer, has a unique appeal—particularly if it can effectively leverage Elon Musk’s influence and integrate well with X’s platform. Its positioning as a “free speech” alternative could help it carve out a niche, especially among audiences dissatisfied with Google’s content moderation practices. However, the question remains whether Grok can evolve into a full-fledged search engine or will remain a specialized tool within Musk’s ecosystem.

The User Experience Factor

For AI-driven search to replace traditional search engines, user experience will be key. People are used to Google’s interface, which presents a list of options that they can choose from. AI-driven alternatives, on the other hand, present the challenge of providing a satisfying, accurate answer on the first try—without the need for the user to “search again.” Perplexity, ChatGPT, and Grok will need to prove that they can consistently deliver accurate and useful information without overwhelming users or leading them down irrelevant pathways.

Yet, as some commenters on The Wall Street Journal article pointed out, traditional search is increasingly seen as cumbersome. “Using Google for a search request takes you to 5-10 web pages you need to read through to find your answer,” one user lamented. In contrast, AI-driven engines like Perplexity offer a way to bypass that entire process—delivering what users want in a fraction of the time. Still, as other comments indicated, there’s also skepticism about whether these AI tools can maintain impartiality, and whether the answers they generate can be trusted without the supporting context of multiple sources.

AI Search Could Compel a Shift in User Behavior

The question of whether AI will replace traditional search doesn’t have a simple answer. The battle between old and new will likely continue for years, with AI-driven search models steadily improving their accuracy and reliability. Companies like Perplexity will have to continue innovating to find their niche, while ChatGPT’s broader use-case versatility could see it become a household tool not just for search, but for an array of daily tasks.

In the end, Google’s biggest challenge may not come from any one of these AI-driven startups individually, but from the collective shift in user behavior that they represent. As younger generations embrace TikTok for quick search queries and use AI tools like ChatGPT for deeper information dives, Google will need to navigate how it can remain relevant in a world that is increasingly demanding immediacy, simplicity, and personalized experiences.

The future of search may well be a blend of the traditional and the new—an amalgamation of Google’s comprehensive search capabilities, the conversational convenience of AI, and the transparency demanded by a growing user base wary of ad-driven agendas. Whether AI can wholly replace traditional search engines remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the competition is heating up, and the winners will be those who adapt fastest to meet users’ evolving needs.

Google’s Hold Begins to Slip

Google is certainly not out of the game yet. In fact, the company still controls the largest chunk of the U.S. search advertising market, and its hold remains strong even as it begins to loosen. According to eMarketer data, Google’s share of the U.S. search ad market is expected to drop below 50% for the first time in over a decade by next year. Currently, Google holds 50.5% of the market, though its growth is at just 7.6%, whereas Amazon is rapidly climbing with a 22.3% share and a growth rate of 17.6%. As Brendan Kraham, a Google vice president overseeing search ads, explained, “We’re confident in this approach to monetizing our AI-powered experiences. We’ve been here before navigating these kinds of changes.”

To maintain its edge, Google has introduced AI-generated summaries at the top of search results, incorporating ads into these new AI-enhanced experiences. It’s a calculated move to retain ad revenue while meeting the growing consumer demand for more direct, answer-based responses. As Google rolls out this feature initially on mobile searches in the U.S., it’s clear that the company is looking to transform itself, though it faces challenges from newer, more agile entrants like Perplexity and TikTok.

A Tense Time for Google

The rising competition comes amid increased scrutiny of Google’s dominance in the search sector. Recently, Google lost an antitrust case that found it had acted illegally to maintain its monopoly on the U.S. search-engine marketplace, and the company is now appealing the ruling. As Jeremy Cornfeldt from Tinuiti stated, “Is it a vulnerable moment for Google? Absolutely.” The challenges presented by new entrants like Perplexity, Grok, and ChatGPT coupled with regulatory pressures, make it a tense time for the Alphabet-owned giant.

These dynamics have created a shifting landscape in search advertising—one where Google is no longer untouchable. While Google has the resources and scale to adapt, there’s no denying that the likes of Perplexity and other AI alternatives have struck a nerve in the market. They’re offering something different: a conversational, answer-based search experience that caters to a generation that values speed, transparency, and engagement. As Perplexity’s Shevelenko aptly put it, they are opening the door for brands to “be part of a conversation” rather than just another search result.

It seems the next few years will determine whether Google’s adjustments will be enough to fend off these agile newcomers or whether its iron grip on search will be permanently broken. One thing is certain: traditional search and how advertisers approach it is poised for a transformation. As Alberts from Dentsu concluded, “This space has been ripe for a shake-up for a long period of time.” We may just be witnessing the beginning of a new AI-powered era in search.

One of the biggest cybersecurity issues is users going to untrusted websites that look like the real things. Google is experimenting with a new feature that could take some of the guesswork out of web browsing, identifying trusted websites with a blue checkmark.

Catch our chat on Google testing blue checkmarks for verified search results!

Not all users are seeing the new feature, as the company is still trying it out.

“We regularly experiment with features that help shoppers identify trustworthy businesses online, and we are currently running a small experiment showing checkmarks next to certain businesses on Google,” Google spokesperson Molly Shaheen told The Verge.

Some of The Verge’s writers were able to see the blue checkmark, although it disappeared when they logged into a different Google account. So far, we at WPN have not seen the label in any testing.

While there’s no guarantee Google will move forward and deploy the feature, it certainly holds promise to address a major issue when browsing the web.

Google is taking a major step toward tackling concerns over the use of AI to create images, with plans to label AI-generated images in search results.

AI-generated content has been a growing concern, for organizations, lawmakers, artists, and more. AI has become so effective at generating content that it can be difficult to tell what is human-created versus what AI generates.

Google joined the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) in February 2024. The C2PA is “a global standards body advancing transparency online through certifying the provenance of digital content.” As the world’s largest search engine, Google joining the body is a major step forward in the battle to prevent AI-generated content from being passed off as the real thing.

Google shared in a blog post how it is helping developing C2PA provenance tech and integrate it into the company’s products.

Provenance technology can help explain whether a photo was taken with a camera, edited by software or produced by generative AI. This kind of information helps our users make more informed decisions about the content they’re engaging with — including photos, videos and audio — and builds media literacy and trust.

In joining the C2PA as a steering committee member, we’ve worked alongside the other members to develop and advance the technology used to attach provenance information to content. Through the first half of this year, Google collaborated on the newest version (2.1) of the technical standard, Content Credentials. This version is more secure against a wider range of tampering attacks due to stricter technical requirements for validating the history of the content’s provenance. Strengthening the protections against these types of attacks helps to ensure the data attached is not altered or misleading.

Google will use C2PA tech in Search and Ads specifically, while also looking for ways to integrate it into YouTube.

• Search: If an image contains C2PA metadata, people will be able to use our “About this image” feature to see if it was created or edited with AI tools. “About this image” helps provide people with context about the images they see online and is accessible in Google Images, Lens and Circle to Search.
• Ads: Our ad systems are starting to integrate C2PA metadata. Our goal is to ramp this up over time and use C2PA signals to inform how we enforce key policies.

We’re also exploring ways to relay C2PA information to viewers on YouTube when content is captured with a camera, and we’ll have more updates on that later in the year.

Google’s involvement in C2PA is a big win for content creators and artists, and will hopefully help prevent AI-generated content from being passed off as something it’s not.

Crawling: The Internet’s Search Scouts

At the heart of any search engine is its ability to discover and collect content. This is where crawling comes in.

“Crawlers are like the scouts of a search engine,” explains Alex Xu, Co-Founder of ByteByteGo. “They traverse the web, hopping from link to link, gathering URLs and analyzing page content. Without crawlers, search engines would be blind.”

Crawlers begin their work by visiting seed URLs, which are high-traffic websites that are likely to contain valuable links. From there, the web is explored using a combination of breadth-first and depth-first search strategies. The former ensures that multiple sites are visited, while the latter allows deeper exploration of individual websites.

Once a site is identified, crawlers pull in essential information such as titles, keywords, and outbound links. This data forms the foundation for the next steps: indexing and ranking. But with so many websites to crawl, search engines must prioritize efficiently. “Crawl budgets are allocated based on factors like update frequency, link popularity, and overall site quality,” says Xu. This ensures that high-value content is crawled frequently while low-impact pages may only be visited sporadically.

JavaScript-heavy sites have added complexity to the task. Modern websites often rely on dynamic content that isn’t immediately visible to crawlers. Search engines address this by using a two-phase crawl: first, they gather static HTML content, and then they render JavaScript to collect the dynamic elements.

Indexing: Organizing the Web’s Information

Once crawlers gather the raw data, the search engine needs to make sense of it. This is where indexing plays a critical role.

“Indexing is essentially about structuring the web’s content for quick and efficient retrieval,” explains Kristine Schachinger, a technical SEO expert. “It’s about transforming that massive crawl data into something that can be quickly queried when a user enters a search.”

During indexing, the content of each page is broken down into individual words and phrases, which are then analyzed to determine their meaning and importance. This process involves understanding language at a deep level. For example, search engines need to recognize that the words “run,” “running,” and “ran” are all different forms of the same root word. This step is straightforward in languages like English but becomes more complex in languages without clear word boundaries, such as Chinese or Japanese.

Search engines also use an inverted index, a powerful data structure that maps every word to the documents in which it appears. This allows them to quickly locate relevant documents when a user submits a query.

“Compression is key in indexing,” says Schachinger. “With billions of pages to store, search engines need to keep their indexes as lean as possible. This often involves machine learning to dynamically compress data in ways that don’t lose the essence of the content.”

Indexing also assesses the quality of the content. Pages with original, in-depth information are favored, while thin or duplicate content is deprioritized. Links between pages are analyzed to understand relationships and determine which pages carry more authority. This link analysis, in turn, impacts the next stage: ranking.

Ranking: Decoding Relevance and Quality

Ranking is where the magic happens. It’s the process that determines which pages show up at the top of your search results and which are relegated to the bottom.

“Ranking algorithms are at the core of how search engines determine relevance,” says Phil Ye, a strategic sourcing leader who often delves into AI-driven technologies. “These algorithms are complex and evolving constantly, but they fundamentally focus on user satisfaction.”

Search engines evaluate numerous factors when ranking a page, including keyword relevance, content quality, user engagement, and technical aspects like page load speed. The ranking process also considers authority: the more high-quality sites link to a page, the more likely it is to rank well.

But relevance alone isn’t enough. Search engines also assess how well the content satisfies user intent. Are users looking for a specific website, general information, or trying to complete a transaction? Modern ranking systems, like Google’s RankBrain and Neural Matching, use machine learning to refine how these results are prioritized.

One key development in recent years is the use of user engagement signals to influence rankings. “If a lot of people click on a particular result and spend time on that page, that’s a strong signal that the page is delivering value,” says Schachinger. This concept—known as dwell time—has become an increasingly important metric in ranking algorithms.

Additionally, search engines strive to balance personalization with objectivity. While results are often tailored based on a user’s location, search history, and device type, search engines aim to provide diverse perspectives, especially for broad or ambiguous queries.

Querying: Understanding User Intent

When you submit a search query, the search engine doesn’t just match keywords. It works hard to understand your intent.

“Querying is the final challenge,” explains John Mueller, an expert in search technologies. “Search engines break down your query, try to understand what you’re really asking for, and then deliver results that match your intent as closely as possible.”

This process begins with parsing, where the search engine analyzes the individual components of the query. Are you looking for a specific website (a navigational query), general information (an informational query), or trying to buy something (a transactional query)? Based on this categorization, the search engine tailors its results.

Search engines also expand your query by suggesting related terms or correcting spelling mistakes. For example, if you search for “running shoes,” the engine might also retrieve results for “jogging sneakers” or suggest “best running shoes for flat feet” based on popular searches.

Continuous Evolution and Adaptation

Search engines are not static entities. They constantly evolve to meet the demands of users and the complexities of the web. This is particularly true in the age of artificial intelligence, where machine learning models are driving significant advancements in search quality.

“AI models like BERT and MUM are changing the game,” says Ye. “These technologies allow search engines to understand context and semantics in ways that were previously impossible. They can interpret the nuances of natural language and provide more accurate, relevant results.”

As user behavior and web content change, search engines update their algorithms accordingly. This means that maintaining high search visibility requires ongoing effort, whether through improving content quality, keeping up with technical SEO practices, or understanding how emerging technologies impact ranking factors.

The Future of Search

The process of crawling, indexing, ranking, and querying is the backbone of modern search engines. However, the future holds even more advanced systems that blend search with AI-driven personalization and deeper semantic understanding.

As the technology progresses, search engines will continue to focus on delivering the most accurate, relevant, and useful results possible. It’s a constant balancing act between serving individual user needs and maintaining the integrity of the broader search landscape.

Search engines have evolved from simple keyword matchers into sophisticated systems that understand user intent, assess content quality, and adapt to ever-changing web environments. This technical dance of crawling, indexing, and ranking may seem invisible, but it’s what keeps our digital world connected and accessible.

The Problem with Traditional Search Engines

For years, Google has been the go-to platform for searching the web, but it’s not without its flaws. Users often find themselves sifting through pages of irrelevant results, navigating a minefield of ads, and spending precious time piecing together information from various sources. Ruben Hassid, a seasoned tech commentator, captures this frustration succinctly: “Everyone’s tired of Googling. You spend 15 minutes going from website to website, trying to summarize it manually and get rid of ads.”

The traditional search engine model, dominated by Google, has become increasingly cumbersome. Despite advancements, the user experience has stagnated, burdened by an overabundance of ads and content that doesn’t always meet the mark. “Google gives you ‘possible results’ but not necessarily ‘the answer you’re looking for,'” notes Izzy Piyale-Sheard, highlighting a common complaint among users.

Perplexity AI: Speed and Precision at Its Core

Perplexity AI, on the other hand, is designed to address these very pain points. Its most significant advantage lies in its speed and precision, delivering exact answers to complex queries without the need to sift through irrelevant information. As Ruben Hassid points out, “It’s all about speed & precision.” This makes Perplexity AI particularly appealing for users who value efficiency and accuracy.

Axelle Malek, a frequent user, shares her experience: “Perplexity gives you the answer directly. No more ads & doom scrolling.” This shift towards providing immediate, relevant answers sets Perplexity AI apart, making it a tool that is not just faster but also more user-centric.

Specialized Search Experience for Enterprise Needs

One of the most compelling aspects of Perplexity AI is its ability to offer a specialized search experience, particularly for enterprise users. Unlike Google, which casts a wide net, Perplexity AI excels in handling complex, niche queries, making it ideal for research-intensive tasks. “Perplexity AI is better than Google for expert-level research,” asserts a user on X (formerly Twitter), encapsulating the sentiment of many in the tech community.

Perplexity AI’s advanced AI technologies, which include integrations with models like ChatGPT-4o and Claude 3.5, enable it to deliver tailored results that are not only relevant but also context-aware. This capability is crucial for enterprise users who require deep, focused insights rather than surface-level information.

Tailored Results and User Interaction

Perplexity AI’s tailored results are another significant draw. The platform is designed to handle specialized topics intuitively, offering precise answers to even the most complex questions. This is particularly useful in professional environments where time and accuracy are of the essence. “Perplexity seems like a huge leap forward—speed, precision, and no ads? Count me in!” exclaims Gurveer Jaidka, a digital marketing expert.

Moreover, Perplexity AI features a robust user interaction and feedback loop, continuously fine-tuning its results based on user preferences and behaviors. This dynamic approach ensures that the search experience is constantly improving, making it more attuned to the needs of its users.

Innovations in Data Privacy

In an era where data privacy is a growing concern, Perplexity AI sets itself apart by prioritizing user privacy through innovations like differential privacy and federated learning. These technologies ensure minimal collection of sensitive data, providing a safer search experience. “The privacy policy they have is the icing on top,” notes Sharon John, a cybersecurity expert, underscoring the importance of data protection in the digital age.

Ad-Free Experience: A Breath of Fresh Air

One of the most refreshing aspects of Perplexity AI is its ad-free interface. For users tired of wading through Google’s ad-laden results, Perplexity AI offers a cleaner, more focused search experience. “Perplexity really is a game-changer in search. It’s great to hear how much you’re enjoying it and how it’s enhancing your workflow,” says Ashfaq Yousafzai, reflecting the broader sentiment among users who have made the switch.

The absence of ads not only improves the user experience but also enhances the accuracy of search results, as they are not influenced by paid placements. This is particularly important for enterprise users who rely on unbiased information for decision-making.

Standardized Interface and High Accuracy

Perplexity AI’s standardized, user-friendly interface is another factor contributing to its growing popularity. Unlike Google’s increasingly cluttered interface, Perplexity AI offers a consistent and intuitive user experience, free from annoying pop-ups and hard-to-read layouts. “The results are quick and clean!! Also fantastic for those little nuggets of information,” notes Peter Belanger, highlighting the platform’s streamlined approach.

In terms of accuracy, Perplexity AI has proven itself in extended trials, consistently delivering accurate answers to complex questions. This reliability is crucial for professionals who need dependable information quickly. “Perplexity AI’s focus on speed, precision, and user experience is a game-changer in the search industry,” asserts Abdullah Al Numan, a frequent user.

The Potential to Revolutionize Search

Perhaps the most significant aspect of Perplexity AI is its potential to revolutionize the search engine landscape. By offering a unique approach powered by advanced AI, Perplexity AI challenges Google’s dominance, pushing the boundaries of what search engines can do. “Perplexity AI is the future of search,” declares Ruben Hassid, capturing the excitement surrounding this emerging technology.

As more users discover the benefits of Perplexity AI, the platform’s popularity is expected to grow, potentially leading to a significant shift in the search engine market. “Perplexity is my default search engine. I feel it brings intelligence back to the user,” says Vikram Bhaskar, reflecting a growing trend among users who are turning away from Google in favor of more innovative alternatives.

Challenges and the Road Ahead

While Perplexity AI offers numerous advantages, it is not without its challenges. One of the most significant hurdles is overcoming the entrenched dominance of Google, which has been the default search engine for billions of users worldwide. However, as more people become aware of the limitations of traditional search engines, the appeal of Perplexity AI’s innovative approach is likely to grow.

Moreover, Perplexity AI must continue to evolve, incorporating new technologies and features to stay ahead of the competition. This includes refining its AI models, expanding its data privacy initiatives, and enhancing its user interaction capabilities. As the platform matures, it will need to address any shortcomings, such as occasional inaccuracies or limitations in certain types of searches, to fully realize its potential.

The Future of Search

As we move further into the digital age, the way we search for information is changing. Perplexity AI represents a significant step forward, offering a faster, more accurate, and more user-centric alternative to traditional search engines like Google. With its advanced AI technologies, ad-free experience, and commitment to data privacy, Perplexity AI is well-positioned to lead the next wave of innovation in search.

For enterprise users, in particular, the benefits of Perplexity AI are clear. The platform’s ability to deliver precise, context-aware insights makes it an invaluable tool for research-intensive tasks, while its user-friendly interface and robust privacy measures ensure a seamless and secure search experience. As more organizations recognize the potential of Perplexity AI, we may well see a shift away from Google and towards a new era of search, one that prioritizes speed, precision, and user satisfaction above all else.