Google Defends Classroom AI Policy as Sanders and Mamdani Cry Extortion

Google spent Tuesday fending off accusations that it is forcing artificial intelligence into American public schools, after a report said the company would effectively cut off search for schools that refuse to use its AI tools. The backlash drew in Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan within hours. The stakes extend beyond one product: Google has already lost antitrust cases over its search and advertising businesses, and regulators on both sides of the aisle are now scrutinizing how it delivers information to children.

The controversy centers on a product called Guided Learning, announced in a Google blog post titled "Designing responsible AI for learning." Guided Learning brings AI directly into Google's Classroom offering, the company's widely deployed education platform. A report by The New York Times, published alongside the announcement, said Google will turn off search for schools that reject AI entirely.

That claim ignited the political response. "Google is trying to use its monopoly power to force AI into our public schools," Mamdani wrote on X. Sanders was blunter, writing that "Google is threatening schools" and calling the policy "extortion."

How did Google respond?

Google answered later the same day in a post on X. The company framed the policy as expanding school choice, saying its Gemini chatbot, Gemini Notebook and search are turned off by default and that "schools are in control," with the ability to switch the services on and off as they see fit.

"We are also updating Search for schools to make it better for learning," Google wrote. "Specifically, AI Mode and AI Overviews will offer step-by-step guided learning through problems, so that students don't get quick answers to schoolwork."

AI Overviews are AI-generated summaries that appear at the top of Google search results; the company introduced them as a search function in May 2024. AI Mode extends that generative approach across the search experience.

Notably, Google's post did not explicitly deny the Times' central claim — that keeping access to search requires accepting AI. The company's own education executive undermined that omission. Chris Phillips, Google's vice president for education, told the Times that "Search and AI are deeply integrated." A Google spokesperson referred CNBC to the X post when asked for comment. In plain terms: Google emphasized choice, but never addressed whether schools can realistically have search without AI.

Why does the monopoly framing matter?

The political attacks did not land in a vacuum. Google has lost antitrust cases over its search and advertising businesses in recent years, and Khan, as FTC chair, aggressively pursued Google and other tech giants including Meta and Amazon.

Khan reentered the debate on Tuesday. Google's new AI-for-learning policy, she wrote on X, highlights "the danger of allowing an unregulated monopolist to control an essential service." Her argument is straightforward: if a dominant provider of search bundles AI into the product schools depend on, school districts may have no practical way to refuse. That framing gives regulators and lawmakers a concrete case study in the broader debate over whether AI deployment by dominant platforms should face new rules.

The scrutiny predates Tuesday's announcement. Last month, Senators Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, and Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, launched an inquiry into Google's push of AI into classrooms — a rare bipartisan pairing that signals political risk for the company. The nonprofit Common Sense Media recently gave Google's AI Overviews an "unacceptable risk" rating.

Is this part of a larger pattern?

The Google dispute is the latest controversy over technology's impact on children and the role of leading internet companies in delivering them information. Two developments from August illustrate the regulatory temperature.

First, Meta reached a landmark $16.7 billion settlement in its child safety trial. A number of state attorneys general had accused the company of misrepresenting the extent of child mental health harms caused by apps like Facebook and Instagram.

Second, OpenAI launched ChatGPT for Teens in August — after state attorneys general opened an investigation into the company's safety practices, and after Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, a Republican, filed a lawsuit in June. The teen product was OpenAI's answer to regulators demanding age-appropriate safeguards, though its rollout itself drew fresh questions about whether the company was expanding to minors while under investigation.

The takeaway: Google's Classroom decision landed in the middle of an already heated fight over what tech platforms owe young users, and the company's timing invited the reaction it received.

What happens next?

Google's position rests on two claims: that schools retain control, and that AI-guided search helps students learn rather than cheat. The first claim has a hole — the company declined to say whether search survives an AI opt-out, and Phillips' "deeply integrated" comment suggests it does not. The second claim has no independent verification yet; Google offered no third-party research or pilot data in Tuesday's blog post.

With a Blumenthal-Hawley inquiry already open, a hostile "unacceptable risk" rating from Common Sense Media, and antitrust losses hanging over its search business, Google has limited room to maneuver. The company's promise of school choice will be tested the moment a district tries to keep search while refusing AI — and on the evidence so far, that test looks designed to fail.

CNBC's MacKenzie Sigalos contributed to the original report on which this article is based.