The appeals in the United States v. Google search case hinge on a fundamental question: do the District Court’s remedies address the anticompetitive conduct that maintained Google’s search monopoly, or do they leave the market largely unchanged? Eight leading economists, legal experts, and technologists argue in an amicus brief that better remedies exist to help restore meaningful competition.

KGI’s Age Assurance Rules provides practical recommendations for designing age assurance rules that support youth online safety while appropriately accounting for tradeoffs involving privacy, service availability, competition, and openness.

KGI’s Measuring Risk II report examines what EU risk assessments and US litigation reveal about Snap and YouTube’s approaches to risks on their platforms, with a particular focus on risks to minors. The report explores the gap between what these platforms publicly disclose about risk mitigation and what has emerged through discovery in US litigation, including their own internal research, product development, and risk evaluation.

The appeals of the United States v. Google search antitrust case turn in part on whether the remedies ordered address Google’s illegal monopoly in search – or whether, by declining to ban the payments Google makes for search defaults, the District Court has left the conduct at the heart of the case largely intact. In Pay for Half, KGI’s Alissa Cooper joins leading economists and competition experts in showing how the court can reasonably cap those payments rather than ban them, opening at least half of the market to rivals, including emerging AI-powered entrants, while preserving revenue for distribution partners.

As the European Commission advances efforts under the Digital Markets Act to require Google to share its search data with competitors, lessons from historic antitrust remedies underscore how data access could be transformational in the AI-powered search market. While the Commission’s proposals represent a novel and comprehensive approach, key improvements to data scope and sharing frequency, privacy protections, and dispute resolution are needed. US courts and enforcers charged with implementing similar provisions should take note.

As social media and generative AI chatbot lawsuits in the United States proceed to discovery and trial, courts are emerging as central actors in shaping technology governance, platform accountability, and online safety. A new report by the Knight-Georgetown Institute, Tech Justice Law, and the USC Marshall School Neely Center provides a practical, evidence-based framework to help courts, litigators, and policymakers craft effective and enforceable remedies for harms associated with social media platforms and AI chatbots.