Google is paying Samsung an ‘enormous sum’ to preinstall Gemini

The Verge - Apr 22nd, 2025

In a pivotal development in Google's ongoing antitrust trial, testimony has revealed that Google has been making significant monthly payments to Samsung to preinstall its Gemini AI app on Samsung devices. This arrangement, which began in January, came after Google was found to have violated antitrust laws due to similar deals with other companies for their search engine. The trial, presided over by Judge Amit Mehta, has seen Google's legal team in intense negotiations with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding the severity of potential penalties. Google's vice president of platforms and device partnerships, Peter Fitzgerald, confirmed that the deal with Samsung is a two-year agreement involving both fixed monthly payments and a share of ad revenue. Fitzgerald also disclosed that other companies, such as Perplexity and Microsoft, had proposed similar deals to Samsung.

This trial holds significant implications for Google's business practices and the tech industry as a whole. If the DOJ's recommendations are accepted, Google may be prohibited from forming default placement agreements in the future. Additionally, the company could be compelled to sell Chrome and license a large portion of the data that powers Google Search. The outcome of this trial is critical, as it could redefine the competitive landscape of AI and search engine markets, potentially reducing Google's dominance and altering how tech giants negotiate partnerships with hardware manufacturers. The case underscores the ongoing global scrutiny of tech monopolies and their influence over consumer choices and market competition.

Samsung Microsoft Google Department Of Justice Gemini Ai Perplexity Ai Assistant Amit Mehta Antitrust Trial Monopoly Search Engine Peter Fitzgerald

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a detailed and timely account of Google's financial arrangements with Samsung amid ongoing antitrust challenges. It draws on reputable sources to support its claims, enhancing its credibility. However, the story could benefit from more precise financial details and a broader range of perspectives to provide a more balanced view. The narrative is clear and accessible, making it engaging for readers interested in technology and legal issues. Despite some limitations in perspective and detail, the article effectively informs readers about a significant and controversial topic with potential implications for the tech industry and market dynamics.

Accuracy

The story provides a detailed account of Google's financial arrangements with Samsung regarding the preinstallation of the Gemini AI app. The key factual claims, such as the payment to Samsung, the timing of these payments, and the nature of the agreement, are supported by sources like Bloomberg and The Information. However, the exact figures of the payments are not disclosed, which limits the precision of the information. The story accurately reflects the ongoing antitrust context and potential penalties Google faces, though it could benefit from more precise details regarding the contractual terms and competitive offers from other companies.

Balance

The article predominantly presents Google's perspective and the details of its arrangement with Samsung, reflecting a focus on the company's actions and the legal implications. While it mentions the DOJ's stance and potential penalties, the story lacks a broader range of perspectives, such as Samsung's viewpoint or insights from industry analysts. This could lead to a perception of imbalance, as the narrative is heavily centered on Google's legal challenges and strategic decisions.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information that guides the reader through the complex legal and business issues involved. The language is straightforward, making it accessible to a broad audience. However, the inclusion of more specific details, such as the exact financial terms of the agreement, would enhance clarity and understanding.

Source quality

The story cites reputable sources like Bloomberg and The Information, which are known for their reliable reporting in business and technology sectors. These sources lend credibility to the claims made in the article. However, the article could enhance its reliability by including direct quotes or statements from involved parties such as Samsung or DOJ officials, providing a more comprehensive view of the situation.

Transparency

The article is transparent about its sources, referencing specific reports and testimonies from the trial. It outlines the context of Google's antitrust issues and the implications of the Gemini deal. However, it could improve transparency by explicitly stating any editorial assumptions or potential conflicts of interest, particularly in how the information was obtained or interpreted.