This investigation follows a recent ruling where a federal court found Google guilty of monopolistic practices for paying companies to have its search engine pre-installed on devices, raising concerns about its ongoing agreements.

This scrutiny comes amid increasing legal pressure on Google, following a 2023 ruling that found the company abused its dominance in the Android app ecosystem.

As these legal challenges continue, both Google and Samsung are proceeding with their partnership under the existing agreement, despite the ongoing investigations.

The DOJ is closely monitoring these payments due to previous findings that such practices can violate antitrust laws, emphasizing the need for regulatory oversight in the tech industry.

During the antitrust trial, it was revealed that Google is paying Samsung a significant monthly sum to preinstall its Gemini AI app on its devices, a deal that began in January 2025 and is set to last for at least two years.

The current hearings aim to assess potential changes or penalties for Google to prevent anti-competitive practices, which may include forcing the company to sell its Chrome browser.

The DOJ expressed concerns that Google's Gemini could enhance its dominance in the search market, creating a feedback loop that funnels users back to its services.

Despite the legal challenges, Google's stock currently holds a Moderate Buy consensus rating from analysts, indicating some investor confidence amid the turmoil.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently scrutinizing Google's business practices, alleging that the tech giant is employing monopoly tactics similar to those it used to dominate the search engine market.

The DOJ's arguments suggest that this new deal with Samsung resembles previous arrangements that stifled competition, particularly in light of Google's past payments to maintain its default search engine status.

A DOJ representative noted that Google is already showing signs of increased dominance associated with its Gemini AI model, which is under scrutiny as part of the ongoing legal challenges.

The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how the U.S. government addresses tech monopolies and competition in the rapidly evolving AI sector.