Lawyers with Big Tech Ties Call for Caution in Google Antitrust Case
A coalition of influential lawyers connected to major tech firms is advising federal judges involved in the Google search antitrust cases to be cautious when deciding on remedies for what they describe as Google’s online monopoly.
This group, which includes former enforcers from the DOJ and FTC, recently filed an Amicus brief with District Judge Amit Mehta, the judge overseeing the Google Search Antitrust Trial. They argue that their stance “doesn’t support either party,” and caution against severe measures like requiring Google to divest its Chrome browsers. However, it’s worth noting that several of the brief’s authors have ties, either direct or indirect, to Google and other significant tech companies.
Judge Mehta is anticipated to deliver a ruling by August. His decision will aim to address illegal control over online searches, particularly following his earlier determination that Google operates as a “monopoly.” The DOJ is advocating for significant actions, including the sale or spin-off of certain business units, rather than just punitive measures for past behavior.
The Amicus Brief’s claims seem to echo Google’s defense, contending that the DOJ’s proposals extend beyond the limits of antitrust law and could jeopardize U.S. leadership in AI as well as national security. Critics, including Sacha Haworth from the Tech Surveillance Project, have raised alarms about these lawyers’ connections to Big Tech, arguing that “only those who have paid for care are rushing to Google’s defense.”
Among the co-authors of the brief are Joe Sims, who downplayed Google’s extensive evidence last year, and Willard Tom, who previously defended Google against antitrust claims. Other contributors include Tad Lipsky, who leads the Competition Advocacy Program at George Mason University, an institution that has received substantial funding from Google and other tech giants while maintaining some contact with antitrust enforcement.
Additional contributors are Richard Parker, a former partner at a law firm representing Google in the Epic Games antitrust case until his retirement in July 2022, and Jon Neuchterlein, who was a partner at Sidley Austin and is affiliated with the Technology Policy Institute, known to receive donations from firms like Google and Apple.
These attorneys, closely associated with Big Tech, are rapidly defending Google. Yet, even during this stage of the antitrust trial, they introduced new evidence about how Google leveraged its search monopoly against publishers. In a recent report, it was noted that as AI continues to evolve, scrutiny of Google’s methods in utilizing web publisher data for AI training has intensified.
Internal documents during the antitrust proceedings shed light on Google’s decision-making around how publishers could manage their data for AI searches. According to Chetna Bindra, a Google Search product management executive, the company assessed various strategies for controlling data usage, which included options for publishers to opt out of specific AI functions. Yet, Google ultimately opted to provide these choices, citing the complexities of AI training and the necessity for a fluid search experience. The internal documentation indicated that Google established a “hard red line,” ensuring that all publishers wishing to appear in search results have to allow their data to be used for AI functionalities, often implementing these changes without public announcements.
