Search Competition

KGI’s work on search competition brings together experts from across economics, technology, law, and business to help advance and inform interventions to restore competition in the digital search market. Our work examines both high-profile antitrust litigation in the US and the development of novel ex-ante regulatory frameworks in Europe and the UK.

Search engines shape how billions of people find and access information and what voices get heard online. Google Search – the world’s dominant search engine – has faced mounting regulatory scrutiny and enforcement actions around the world over its anti-competitive practices designed to preserve its dominance across the web and devices. Search is a complex market where designing effective interventions requires grappling with questions related to large-scale data collection, advances in AI and other technological inputs, relationships with adjacent markets in mobile and on the web, and consumer behavior and decision-making in the market.

KGI’s work on search competition is focused on seeding and creating intellectual foundations for effective interventions amidst this complexity. Our work examines both high-profile antitrust litigation in the US and the development of novel ex-ante regulatory frameworks in Europe and the UK. 

We convene experts from across economics, technology, law, and business to produce novel insights. We also produce our own technical analyses. Key outputs have included: 

Latest Work

Pay for Half: A Better Remedy for Google Search

Commentary /

Pay for Half: A Better Remedy for Google Search

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.

Designing Europe’s Search Data Sharing Rules for Competition in the AI Era

Commentary /

Designing Europe’s Search Data Sharing Rules for Competition in the AI Era

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.

Tracking Tech-Related Litigation

Commentary /

Tracking Tech-Related Litigation

As lawsuits involving AI, social media, privacy, competition, and platform accountability expand worldwide, courts are emerging as central actors shaping technology governance. A new tech litigation tracker developed by the Knight-Georgetown Institute, Tech Justice Law, and Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture & Technology program centralizes and tracks technology-related litigation and regulatory actions across jurisdictions and issue areas.

Designing Technology Remedies: Lessons for Social Media and Generative AI Chatbot Litigation

Report /

Designing Technology Remedies: Lessons for Social Media and Generative AI Chatbot Litigation

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.

Designing the Technical Committee for the United States v. Google Search Antitrust Remedy

Report /

Designing the Technical Committee for the United States v. Google Search Antitrust Remedy

The Technical Committee is a key component of the remedies ordered in the US v. Google search antitrust case, intended to ensure effective implementation of court-ordered obligations and technical measures to promote competition in online search. KGI’s latest report provides a practical blueprint for the formation, structure, and operation of this independent body of experts.

KGI: 2025 Annual Report

Report /

KGI: 2025 Annual Report

In its first full year in operation, KGI made its mark across technology policy venues and outlets. Through expert-led, evidence-based work, KGI helped inform policy approaches to algorithmic feed design, researcher access to data, and competition enforcement in the search market – demonstrating how independent research can shape real-world decisions in the United States and Europe.

See All Work

Close