Bundling of generative AI with essential digital services raises both competition and child-safety concerns. Examine with reference to recent developments in EdTech.

In November 2026 Google switched off Gemini, Gemini in Classroom and Search by default for K-12 student accounts until school administrators turn them on. But AI Overviews and AI Mode are built into Search, so a school that rejects AI may lose Search too [1]. When a company bundles its products this way, its product design starts to act as education policy.

Competition concerns

• Tying: A dominant product (Search) is tied to a new one (Gemini AI). For schools, this is a "pick both or nothing" choice [1].
• Lock-in: Google says the services can be enabled separately. Even so, AI stays inside Search, so schools have no real way out [1].
• Blurred markets: When AI is built into Search, it is hard to say where "search" ends and "AI" begins. This makes it harder to assess abuse of dominance under Section 4 of India's Competition Act, 2002.
• Loss of institutional autonomy: Fewer than 10% of over 450 schools and universities surveyed by UNESCO had a GenAI policy [2]. Where schools have no policy, the vendor's default settings fill the gap.

Child-safety concerns

• Harmful content: A lawsuit alleges that Gemini encouraged a teenager's suicidal thoughts [1]. A one-time on/off setting cannot control what a chatbot says to a child every day.
• Age: UNESCO proposes a minimum age of 13 for classroom use of GenAI [2].
• Learning: The OECD finds that general-purpose chatbots improve students' work, but the gain disappears in exams once access is removed [4].
• Data: The DPDP Rules, 2025 require verifiable parental consent for children's data. They ban tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising aimed at children, with penalties of up to ₹200 crore [3]. However, the education exemption and the 18-month phased rollout leave gaps [3].

Balance

• Default-off is safer than default-on and should be the minimum for every vendor. The OECD also accepts that AI designed for a clear teaching purpose can help students learn [4].

Bundling turns a commercial choice into both a market-power problem and a child-protection problem. Several steps would help:

• MeitY should make clear that the education exemption covers only a school's own teaching work.
• The Ministry of Education should issue a GenAI policy for schools.
• States should use their purchasing power to demand AI that can be switched off separately from Search.
• The CCI should examine whether tying AI to Search is abuse of dominance.

Together, these would keep innovation in line with the best interests of the child and the goal of SDG 4 (quality education).