As the Justice Department's antitrust case against Google continues, it's becoming increasingly clear that judges will have to decide whether to believe what Google executives wrote in emails and chats or what they said on the witness stand, such as when one witness claimed that the emails outdoing competitors were “jet-lagged ramblings.”
Associated Press Reports The Justice Department is set to wrap up its antitrust lawsuit against tech giant Google this week in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. The government, along with a coalition of states, argues that Google has established and maintained a monopoly over technology that makes it easy to buy and sell the online ads that consumers see while browsing the internet.
Interestingly, many of the government's key witnesses were Google managers and executives, who often tried to distance themselves from statements made in emails, chats and company presentations during their testimony.
One notable example was testimony on Thursday from Google product manager Jonathan Bellack. In a 2016 email, Bellack questioned whether there were deeper problems with Google owning a platform, an exchange and a vast network, likening it to a scenario in which Goldman Sachs or Citibank owned the New York Stock Exchange.
The Justice Department, which considered Bellack's description a summary of the lawsuit, alleges that Google's technology dominates the marketplace online publishers use to sell ad space, the technology big advertiser networks use to buy ad space, and even the “ad exchanges” that act as middlemen between buyers and sellers. The lawsuit alleges that Google's dominance in every aspect of the transaction allows it to charge exorbitant fees — as much as 36 cents on the dollar for every ad impression that passes through its ad tech stack — while simultaneously crowding out competitors.
But in his testimony, Mr. Bellack dismissed the email as “late-night jet-lagged ramblings” and said he didn't believe the issue was about Google's control over buyers, sellers or intermediaries, but instead argued he was speculating about why some customers were seeking workarounds for Google's technology.
The Justice Department argues that what Googlers wrote in real time more accurately reflects reality, and suggests there would have been more incriminating evidence if the company hadn't systematically deleted many of the internal chat rooms that employees used to discuss work matters after it was informed that an investigation was underway.
Testimony revealed that Google implemented a “discreet communications” policy, instructing employees to include company lawyers in confidential emails, which classifies the lawyers as “privileged” and exempt from disclosure to government regulators. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema called Google's document retention policy “wholly inadequate and unreasonable,” and said she found this out during the trial but that no specific punishment had been imposed.
As the government nears the conclusion of its case, the judge will be faced with a crucial decision about whether to give weight to documentary evidence or witness testimony. The outcome of the case could have major implications for Google and the entire online advertising industry.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more at AP here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering free speech and online censorship.
