> They signed the agreement, and now are going to courts to claim they had no choice.
Did the title change? They (Lenovo) are going to court? This is an antitrust case against Google and the witness is not part of the agreement signed. Is Lenovo suing Google?
The title is representing the witness (perplexity) stance, not Lenovo's. And given it's a antitrust suit it seems like a very valid stance.
Even rereading the whole thread I don't get what is misleading. Google and Motorola signed an agreement, and it blocks Motorola from using Perplexity as its core search engine.
Saying Google has no part in this would be wrong, and the fact that the agreement was mutual doesn't change the restrictions.
Who's overthinking? This is not an example of a bad title: the main message of the piece is that a (prosecuting?) witness is demonstrating how the alleged antitrust behavior of one of the signatory parties prevents them from operating as they see fit. Lenovo is not the one on the stand being accused of antitrust behavior. I guess perplexity could accuse Lenovo of antitrust behavior but that's not the case the article is describing, is it?
Read it again perhaps? Without any of that context, it just reads like "google blocked [some/all] use of Perplexity AI on [some/all] Motorola devices"
Try not to overthink it.