Closing arguments in a landmark antitrust case that could bring unprecedented changes to the tech giant’s core business concluded Friday, with a federal judge ruling that Google’s “negligent actions led to the deletion of employee chat records.” ” policy.
Justice Department lawyers ask Judge Amit Mehta to sanction Google for failing to preserve evidence despite court orders, ruling that Google’s actions were aimed at covering up anti-competitive conduct. I asked. Google denies wrongdoing.
Mehta said Google’s enforcement of the policy was “negligent.” automatically destroyed Employee messages after 24 hours.
“Google’s document retention policies still have a lot of room for improvement,” Mehta said. “It’s shocking to me that companies are leaving it up to their employees to decide when to save documents.”
Mehta did not say whether Google would be sanctioned over the policy. Lawyers for the tech giant said the auto-erasure policy was explicitly disclosed to the plaintiffs years ago, undermining federal claims that it showed an intent to destroy evidence.
Google has already been sanctioned for the same alleged destruction of evidence in a separate federal lawsuit filed by Fortnite maker Epic Games. Late last year, U.S. District Judge James Donato said it was deeply disturbing that Google “knowingly and intentionally withheld relevant evidence in this case.”
“This action is a frontal attack on the fair administration of justice. It ignores due process. It calls into question the resolution of legal disputes. It is antithetical to our system,” Donato said. Said in December.
At the beginning of the Justice Department’s antitrust case, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that an automatic chat deletion policy was already in place when he took over in 2015, and that he has since repealed it. He testified that he had taken steps to do so.
Much of the final day’s closing arguments focused on Google’s conduct toward advertisers in the online search market.
The Justice Department says Google’s market power allows it to jack up prices for advertisers, and that the company sometimes adjusts search results to the detriment of their quality to increase profits. The claim was made citing internal documents.
“Only a monopoly company can make a worse product and still make more money,” said David Dahlquist, a Justice Department lawyer.
A day earlier, Google faced tough questions over lawyers’ claims that it faces stiff competition for users. The company’s lawyers cited other technology platforms such as Microsoft and Amazon as competitors for search traffic, as well as travel sites such as Expedia, smaller search engines such as DuckDuckGo, and media outlets such as ESPN.
Mehta seems skeptical that Google, which has a 90% share of the online search market, faces significant competition from these companies.
“Do you really think DuckDuckGo is a competitor to Google?” the judge asked Google’s lawyers at one point Thursday.
The judge also reviewed the Justice Department’s arguments, warning that federal authorities face a “difficult road” to proving that Google has failed to innovate online search over the past decade.
He cited Microsoft’s admission during the trial that it had not spent enough resources building its own mobile search business to compete with Google.
Mehta is scheduled to rule later this year on whether Google maintains an illegal monopoly over online search. At the end of his first court testimony last fall, Mehta admitted he had “no idea” how he would rule on the case.
If Mr. Mehta rules against Google, another trial will be held to determine what remedies are available. The Justice Department has not disclosed what relief it is seeking.
Options could include a forced “choice screen” that would allow users to choose their own default search engine, and the dismantling of Google’s business empire.
The Justice Department says Google has paid billions of dollars over the years to partners like Apple and AT&T ($26.3 billion in 2021 alone) to ensure that its search engine is enabled by default on most smartphones. (including). Federal authorities argue that these agreements harm consumers by stifling competition and limiting choice and search quality.
Ahead of closing arguments, unredacted documents revealed that Google had given Apple a whopping $20 billion to be the default search engine on iPhones and other devices in 2022. The Justice Department cited the size of the deal as evidence of its importance to Google.
Google denies operating as a monopoly and insists it faces intense competition in the online search market. The company describes Default Deals as fair competition and claims that the public is drawn to its search tools because of its quality.
Closing arguments came months after witness testimony began in mid-September and lasted 10 weeks. Key witnesses included Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who testified that Google’s default deal made the concept of user choice in online search “totally bogus.”
Last October, Google CEO Sundar Pichai took the stand, as did Apple executive Eddie Cue, economists, professors, and business executives. A detailed explanation of how the search empire works.
with post wire
