US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

YC’s Brief and Proposed Remedies

  • YC supports the government’s antitrust case and backs strong, forward‑looking remedies focused on:
    • Opening access to Google’s search index and related datasets on fair terms.
    • Banning exclusive data deals (e.g. Reddit‑style “only Google can train on this corpus”).
    • Preventing Google from self‑preferencing its own AI tools in search results.
    • Restricting pay‑for‑default search contracts on browsers, phones, cars, etc.
    • Adding anti‑circumvention/anti‑retaliation mechanisms, with breakup (e.g. Android) as a threat if Google cheats.

Motives and Conflicts of Interest

  • Many commenters see YC as acting in its own financial interest: it wants cheaper data and easier distribution for its AI and search‑adjacent startups.
  • Some argue that VCs routinely push monopolization in their own portfolio, so their antitrust rhetoric is self‑serving, not principled.
  • Others respond that antitrust is supposed to open space for new entrants; that YC gains from this doesn’t invalidate the remedies.

Is Google a Monopoly or Just Better?

  • One side: Google “won fair and square” by building the best search, browser, maps, etc., and people voluntarily switch defaults to Google.
  • The other side: dominance is maintained by:
    • Massive default‑search payments (e.g. to mobile OS vendors and browsers).
    • Tying search, Chrome, Android, ads, analytics, and data together into a single ecosystem.
    • Using scale and user‑interaction data (from search + Chrome) in ways competitors can’t replicate.
  • Debate over whether that harms consumers: some say results and tools are great and “free”; others point to degraded search quality, ad taxes on businesses, tracking, and limited real choice.

AI, Data, and the Web Index

  • Strong concern that Google’s search index and user‑behavior data become an unbeatable advantage in LLM‑based “AI search” and agents.
  • Support for banning exclusive training‑data deals and possibly treating the web crawl/index as a shared infrastructure (with FRAND‑style access).
  • Pushback:
    • Opening Google’s index is described by critics as “looting” trade secrets and users’ data without consent.
    • Technical and economic feasibility of a common index is questioned, especially given publisher resistance and bot overload.

Remedy Design and Systemic Risk

  • Structural remedies floated: spinning out search, ads, Chrome, Android, or the index as separate entities.
  • Some worry that heavily damaging Google’s ad business could destabilize many dependent products (Gmail, Maps, Android, YouTube, etc.) and cause broader economic shock.
  • Others argue “too big to fail means too big to exist”: the long‑term benefits of breaking multi‑market dominance outweigh short‑term pain, and alternatives already exist or would quickly emerge.