Tech
Google avoids being dismantled after US court battle—and it’s down to the rise of AI
A year ago, Google faced the prospect of being dismantled. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) and a new court judgment has helped it avoid this fate. Part of the reason is that AI poses a grave threat to Google’s advertising revenues.
“Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment,” according to the decision.
Google must share certain data with “qualified competitors” as deemed by the court. This will include parts of its search index, Google’s inventory of web content. Judge Mehta will allow Google to continue paying companies like Apple and Samsung to distribute its search engine on devices and browsers. But he will bar Google from maintaining exclusive contracts.
The history of this decision goes back to a 2024 ruling by federal judge Amit Mehta. It found that Google maintained a monopoly in the search engine market, notably by paying billions to companies including Apple and Samsung to set Google as the default search engine on their devices.
Almost a year later, the same US judge issued his final ruling, and the tone could not be more different. Google will not be broken up. There will be no choice screen on new phones.
The nature of the search engine market, where more users generate more data, and more data improves search quality, made it impossible for competitors to challenge Google, the court found in 2024.
The 2024 ruling itself was controversial. While high quality data enables a dominant firm to extract more profit from consumers, it also allows it to provide a better service. Decades of research in economics has shown that determining which effect is more important is not straightforward.
At the time, the US Department of Justice deemed the issue so serious that it considered breaking up Google as the only viable solution. For instance, it suggested forcing the company to sell its web browser, Google Chrome.
The government also proposed forcing device manufacturers to offer users a choice of search engines during set up, and compelling Google to share most of its data on user behavior and ad bidding, where advertisers compete in auctions to get their ads shown to users for a specific search query or audience. These so-called “remedies,” measures Google would be required to implement to end its monopoly, aimed to restore competition.
Limited sharing
So, what has changed in a year to so radically change the perception of Google’s market dominance? The main answer is AI—and specifically, large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude, and Google’s own Gemini. As users increasingly turn to LLMs for web searches, Google responded by placing AI-generated summaries at the top of its search results.
The way people navigate the internet is quickly evolving, with one trend reshaping the business models of online companies: the zero-click search. According to a Bain & Company survey, consumers now default to accepting AI-generated answers without further interaction. The data is striking: 80% of users report being satisfied with AI responses for at least 40% of their searches, often stopping at the summary page.
Threat to ad revenue
This AI-driven shift in consumer behavior threatens not only Google’s business model but also that of most internet-based companies. Advertising accounts for roughly 80% of Google’s revenue, earned by charging companies for prominent placement in search results and by leveraging its vast amount of user data to sell ad space across the web. If users stop clicking links, this revenue stream evaporates.
More importantly for this ruling, the market Google once monopolized may no longer be the relevant one. Today, Google’s primary potential competitors in search are not Microsoft Bing, but AI models like ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity. In the global race for AI dominance, the outcome is far from certain.
From an antitrust standpoint, there is little justification for penalizing Google now or forcing it to cede advantages to competitors. What would be the benefit for consumers of forcing Google to accept the £24.6 billion offer from Jeff Bezos’ Perplexity AI to buy the Chrome browser?
In essence, the judge acknowledges that Google monopolized the search engine market for a decade but concludes that the issue may resolve itself in the years ahead.
This situation echoes the first major monopolization case: Internet Explorer. For years, European and US regulators battled Microsoft to dismantle the dominance of its web browser, which was bundled with the then-dominant Windows 95 operating system.
By the time all appeals were exhausted, however, the monopoly had vanished. Internet Explorer was partly a victim of the rise of smartphones, which did not rely on Windows. The new king in town was a newcomer: a certain Google Chrome.
How you view the economic and political power of tech giants will shape which lesson you draw from this story. An optimistic view I suggested (with the economist Jana Friedrichsen) is that winner-takes-all markets can intensify competition through innovation. In such markets, incremental investment is not enough; to challenge Google, a competitor must offer a vastly superior product to capture the entire market.
Precisely because they ruthlessly defend their monopoly positions, tech giants show competitors that the potential gains from radical innovations are massive. The pessimistic view, however, is that years of dominance have left these firms largely unaccountable, which could embolden them in future.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Citation:
Google avoids being dismantled after US court battle—and it’s down to the rise of AI (2025, September 6)
retrieved 6 September 2025
from https://techxplore.com/news/2025-09-google-dismantled-court-ai.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
Tech
Top Design Within Reach Promo Codes for March 2026
Design Within Reach carries some of the best and coolest home decor you can find, from modern couches to fantastic office chairs and fun designers like Herman Miller and Dusen Dusen. It’s not a cheap store to shop at, though, which is what makes these coupons something to jump on. Unlock online-exclusive discounts of up to 50%, free shipping, plus 20% off featured brands and 15% off office furniture bundles with Design Within Reach promo codes and Summer 2025 sale events. Save on hundreds of stylish items, including our favorite Design Within Reach office chairs, plus some other fantastic home gear we’ve earmarked for testing.
Extra 25% Off at Design Within Reach
Upgrade your digs to sleek Eames-esque mid-century modern design for up to 25% off furniture with Design Within Reach promo code EXTRA25. Head to Design Within Reach’s sale page for huge markdowns of live-proof, luxe furniture and household items like storage furniture, bar stools, chairs, couches, cabinetry, accessories, and more. And don’t forget to use that Design Within Reach promo code for even more savings.
Get 15% Off Furniture With Design Within Reach Promo Codes
On Design Within Reach’s website, you’ll see an expansive catalogue with a huge range of furniture to revamp any room—from couches and credenzas to coffee tables and bar stools for way less than normal designer prices. Flos lamps, known for mixing functionality and style, are now 20% off for a limited time. These colorful table lamps start at $255, with wall sconces, pendants, and more on sale.
Summer’s here, and it’s better late than never to get some great outdoor furniture. During Design Within Reach’s outdoor sale event, you can get up to 30% off great outdoor furniture essentials, like outdoor sectionals, chaise lounge chairs, benches, and outdoor tables. You can get bonus savings with sitewide Design Within Reach promo codes during this time. But you can still save thousands of dollars, on top of 50% off markdowns. If you’ve been eyeing the Eames Lounge Chair, Aeron Chair, or Noguchi table, this is your chance to save over $1,500.
One of the easiest ways to get a design within reach coupon is by signing up for their emails. When you sign up for DWR’s email list, you’ll get 15% off your first order, plus, you’ll be the first to know of flash sale events and discount codes when the updates are sent straight to your inbox.
You can ditch the delivery fees with Quick-Ship free shipping offers. You can save up to $699 and get complimentary shipping sitewide on orders of $2,000 or more. Explore the many items with quick-ship and free shipping offers, including sofas, storage pieces, coffee tables, and more iconic furniture. Check out their New to Sale deals too, with 40% off select bar stools, 20% off sectionals, and decor for 50% off. Design Within Reach’s end-of-season sales are some of the best times to save big on those pricier purchases, but you’ll be surprised to find that many new arrivals will go on sale too. While you’re browsing the Sale section, you can use the filter button to organize by category, specific designers, brands, and even price. Unleash your inner interior designer and go wild.
Shop up to 50% Off Design Within Reach Clearance Sale Deals
Buying furniture and other household items can be one of the biggest purchases one makes in their life. Luckily, Design Within Reach has some great furniture deals, with clearance deals that are even steeper than their usual sale discounts. These deals include last-chance furniture discounts, with up to 50% off on all home categories and decor—including light fixtures, tables, ottomans, furniture cushions, and more. Check out Design Within Reach clearance deals and take advantage of the final sale prices, where furniture items are at their lowest prices yet—before they go out of stock.
More Ways to Save on Design Within Reach Furniture
Design Within Reach is also here for small business owners and design industry professionals, to help them jumpstart and elevate their businesses in style. They can apply to the free DWR Trade program, where they will receive sitewide discounts every day, a dedicated Account Executive, exclusive promotions only available to Trade members, and exclusive and discounted Trade pricing across Design Within Reach’s 200 premium design brands in one place.
Our Favorite Design Within Reach Gear
Design Within Reach has a huge range of designers and home pieces, from massive couches to decor and chargers. They carry Herman Miller pieces we love from our guide to the Best Office Chairs, plus chargers from Courant that we recommend in our Best Wireless Chargers guide. We’ve also got our eye on couches and sheets from designers like Hay and Dusen Dusen to test too that you can find at Design Within Reach.
Tech
A Billionaire-Backed Startup Wants to Grow ‘Organ Sacks’ to Replace Animal Testing
As the Trump administration phases out the use of animal experimentation across the federal government, a biotech startup has a bold idea for an alternative to animal testing: nonsentient “organ sacks.”
Bay Area-based R3 Bio has been quietly pitching the idea to investors and in industry publications as a way to replace lab animals without the ethical issues that come with living organisms. That’s because these structures would contain all of the typical organs—except a brain, rendering them unable to think or feel pain. The company’s long-term goal, cofounder Alice Gilman says, is to make human versions that could be used as a source of tissues and organs for people who need them.
For Immortal Dragons, a Singapore-based longevity fund that’s invested in R3, the idea of replacement is a core strategy for human longevity. “We think replacement is probably better than repair when it comes to treating diseases or regulating the aging process in the human body,” says CEO Boyang Wang. “If we can create a nonsentient, headless bodyoid for a human being, that will be a great source of organs.”
For now, R3 is aiming to make monkey organ sacks. “The benefit of using models that are more ethical and are exclusively organ systems would be that testing can be meaningfully more scalable,” Gilman says. (R3’s name comes from the philosophy in animal research known as the three R’s—replacement, reduction, and refinement—developed by British scientists William Russell and Rex Burch in 1959 to promote humane experimentation.)
New drugs are often tested in monkeys before they’re given to human participants in clinical trials. For instance, monkeys were critical during the Covid-19 pandemic for testing vaccines and therapeutics. But they’re also an expensive resource, and their numbers are dwindling in the US after China banned the export of nonhuman primates in 2020.
Animal rights activists have long pushed to end research on monkeys, and one of the seven federally funded primate research facilities across the country has signaled it would consider shutting down and transitioning into a sanctuary amid growing pressure. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also winding down monkey research, part of a bigger trend across the government to reduce reliance on animal testing.
As a result, Gilman says, there aren’t enough research monkeys left in the US to allow for necessary research if another pandemic threat emerges. Enter organ sacks.
Organ sacks would in theory offer advantages over existing organs-on-chips or tissue models, which lack the full complexity of whole organs, including blood vessels.
Gilman says it’s already possible to create mouse organ sacks that lack a brain, though she and cofounder John Schloendorn deny that R3 has made them. (For the record, Gilman doesn’t like the term “brainless” to describe the organ sacks. “It’s not missing anything, because we design it to only have the things we want,” she says.) Gilman and Schloendorn would not say how exactly they plan to create the monkey and human organ sacks, but said they are exploring a combination of stem-cell technology and gene editing.
It’s plausible that organ sacks could be grown from induced pluripotent stem cells, says Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell biologist at the University of California, Davis. These stem cells come from adult skin cells and are reprogrammed to an embryonic-like state. They have the potential to form into any cell or tissue in the body and have been used to create embryo-like structures that resemble the real thing. By editing these stem cells, scientists could disable genes needed for brain development. The resulting embryo could then be incubated until it grows into organized organ structures.
Tech
A Mysterious Numbers Station Is Broadcasting Through the Iran War
“Tavajoh! Tavajoh! Tavajoh!” a man’s voice announces, before going on to narrate a string of numbers in no apparent order, slowly and rhythmically. After nearly two hours, the calls of “Attention!” in Persian stop, only to resume again hours later.
The broadcast has been playing twice a day on a shortwave frequency since the start of the US-Israel attack on Iran on February 28.
According to Priyom, an organization which tracks and analyses global military and intelligence use of shortwave radio, using established radio-location techniques, the broadcast was first heard as the US bombing of Iran began. It has since played on the 7910 kHz shortwave frequency like clockwork—at 02.00 UTC and again at 18.00 UTC.
Over the weekend, Priyom said it had identified the likely origin of the broadcast. Using multilateration and triangulation techniques, the group traced the signal to a shortwave transmission facility inside a US military base in Böblingen, southwest of Stuttgart, Germany.
The site lies within a restricted training area between Panzer Kaserne and Patch Barracks, with technical operations possibly linked to the US army’s 52nd Strategic Signal Battalion, headquartered nearby.
That identification narrows the field, but it does not reveal who is behind the transmissions or who they are meant for.
The two-hour-long transmission is divided into five to six segments, each lasting up to 20 minutes. Each opens with “Tavajoh!” before shifting into a string of numbers in Persian, sometimes punctuated with an English word or two. Five days into the broadcast, radio jammers were heard attempting to block the frequency. The following day, the transmission shifted to a different frequency—7842 kHz.
Radio communication experts believe the broadcast is likely part of a Cold War–era system known as number stations.
The Return of the Numbers
Number stations are shortwave radio broadcasts that play strings of numbers or codes that sound random—like the one now heard in Iran. “It is an encrypted radio message used by foreign intelligence services, often as part of a complex operation by intelligence agencies and militaries,” says Maris Goldmanis, a Latvian historian and avid numbers stations researcher.
Number stations are most commonly associated with espionage. “For intelligence agencies, it is important to communicate with their spies to gather intelligence,” says John Sipher, a former US intelligence officer who served 28 years in the CIA’s National Clandestine Service. “This is not always possible in person due to political constraints or conflict. This is where number stations come in.”
While the use of number stations can be traced back to the First World War, they gained prominence during the US-Soviet Cold War. As espionage grew more sophisticated, governments used automated voice transmissions of coded numbers to communicate with agents, Goldmanis says. Citing declassified KGB and CIA documents, he adds that number stations were widely used during this period, often as Morse code transmissions and, in many cases, as two-way communications, with agents reporting back using their own shortwave transmitters.
“Nowadays, you have various satellite and encrypted communications technologies,” Sipher says. “But during the Cold War and even before that, governments had to find ways to do this without being noticed, and broadcasting coded messages was one way to communicate with your assets discreetly.”
The apparent randomness of the numbers means they can be understood only with a codebook, Sipher adds. “Nobody can make heads or tails of it or understand what it says unless you have the codebook that can give you hints to decrypt the code,” he says, noting that such systems must be set up and coordinated in advance.
A Signal Without a Sender
While the likely origin of the signal may now be clearer, its purpose and intended recipient remain unknown.
Because the broadcasts are encrypted and designed to be covert, those details may remain unclear for years, Goldmanis says. The structured nature of the transmission—its fixed schedule and consistent use of frequencies—further suggests it is part of a planned operation.
-
Entertainment1 week agoStrategic oil stocks to be released ‘immediately’ in Asia and Oceania: IEA
-
Business1 week agoNew Income Tax Act 2025 To Take Effect From April 1: 10 Key Changes That Will Affect Your Money
-
Sports1 week agoTransfer rumors, news: Real Madrid open to Camavinga exit, as Premier League clubs circle
-
Business1 week agoUK looking at all options to secure Strait of Hormuz, says Ed Miliband
-
Tech1 week agoEarly Deals From the Amazon Spring Sale That Passed Our BS Test
-
Sports1 week agoTeam USA advances to World Baseball Classic final after win over Dominican Republic
-
Sports6 days agoMarch Madness 2026 – How to watch in SA, start time, schedule, TV channel for NCAA championship basketball tournament
-
Business1 week agoStocks To Watch: Tata Motors, IndiGo, Jindal Stainless, GMR Airports, Hindalco, And Others
