As Google’s antitrust trial wraps, DOJ seeks sanctions over missing messages

The destiny of Google’s hunt business is now successful nan hands of Judge Amit Mehta, arsenic closing arguments concluded successful nan landmark proceedings connected Friday.

The Department of Justice and plaintiff states made their past arguments Thursday connected Google’s alleged anticompetitive behaviour successful nan wide hunt market, and connected Friday focused connected its allegedly forbidden behaviour successful hunt advertising. Google was besides nether occurrence (separately) for failing to clasp chat messages that nan DOJ believes could person been applicable to nan case. 

The authorities is trying to show that Google locked up cardinal distribution channels for nan wide hunt motor market, truthful that would-be rivals could not turn into important threats. It says it did truthful done contracts pinch telephone manufacturers and browser companies to beryllium their exclusive default hunt engine. If nan judge agrees that Google successfully foreclosed title successful that market, he tin see nan government’s arguments astir nan hunt advertizing marketplace arsenic grounds of anticompetitive conduct.

In his summary, DOJ lawyer Kenneth Dintzer said that nan past awesome tech monopoly decision, US v. Microsoft, “fits for illustration a glove” connected Google. Google’s lead litigator successful nan case, John Schmidtlein, disagreed. In Microsoft, he said, manufacturers were coerced into deals and customers were spoon-fed an inferior merchandise they didn’t want. “Google has won pinch a superior product,” he said.

“The value and value of this lawsuit is not mislaid connected me,” Mehta said arsenic he concluded Friday’s tribunal proceedings. “Not only for Google, but for nan public.”

An capable substitute for Google ads

If Google charges higher prices for advertising, are location suitable substitutes that advertisers would fly to? The reply to that mobility tin opportunity a batch astir whether aliases not Google has nan monopoly powerfulness that nan DOJ alleges it has created done nan contracts it has to beryllium nan default hunt motor connected various browsers and devices. Google says there’s plentifulness of alternatives for advertisers; nan authorities disagrees. 

Mehta seemed sympathetic to nan government’s arguments, though he acknowledged that alternatives to Google are robust advertisement companies successful their ain right. Amazon, for instance, isn’t precisely an inferior substitute to Google for ads, said Mehta. Unlike wrapping a sandwich successful newspaper instead of cellophane, Mehta said, “If you move your advertisement money from Google to Amazon, you’re not wrapping your advertisement successful newspaper.”

But Mehta later differentiated advertisement platforms for illustration Facebook and TikTok from Google. Users searching connected Google travel pinch a beardown thought of what they’re looking for, beautiful overmuch pronunciation it retired successful nan query. Social media platforms often person to infer that intent from indirect signals.

In 2017, Google ran an research complete respective weeks and recovered it could summation prices 5 to 15 percent while still increasing revenue. “Google is capable to determine connected what nan separator that they are going to get is. And that’s why they’re moving experiments to say, ‘well if we up it by 15 percent, really overmuch are we going to suffer successful revenue?’” Mehta said to Schmidtlein. “That’s thing that only a monopolist could do, right?” Schmidtlein disagreed, saying it’s adjacent to tally pricing experiments to fig retired if they’re charging nan correct price. 

Mehta pointed retired that location was “no grounds that Google ever looks astatine a competitors’ pricing” for that purpose. Schmidtlein responded it wasn’t that simple. Because ads are sold done a analyzable auction, not moreover Google has full penetration into nan pricing system down it. It simply isn’t nan aforesaid arsenic a Coca-Cola rep stepping done a market shop to spot Pepsi’s prices.

Sabotaging ads connected Bing

The plaintiff states — the attorneys wide for 38 states led by Colorado and Nebraska  that brought nan suit alongside nan DOJ — are besides arguing that Google intentionally dragged its feet erstwhile building definite features for SA360, its hunt motor trading tool. SA360 helps advertisers negociate ads done different platforms — not conscionable Google, but competitors for illustration Microsoft’s Bing. 

The states opportunity that Google lagged down successful building a SA360 characteristic for Bing ads erstwhile it had already implemented it for Google hunt ads. 

“The grounds present is simply a small spot tricky for Google,” Mehta said, noting nan value of Google having said alternatively publically astatine nan commencement that it was “not going to play favorites” erstwhile it came to SA360. While Google could person chosen to exclude Microsoft from nan instrumentality astatine nan outset, “that’s not nan prime they made,” Mehta said. 

The instrumentality was not delivered for astir 5 years aft Microsoft asked for it. “How tin that not beryllium astatine slightest inferred to beryllium anticompetitive?” Mehta asked. 

Deleted chats

Hanging complete nan full lawsuit is an rumor astir whether Google intentionally deleted aliases grounded to clasp documents that mightiness person been utilized arsenic grounds successful this trial. 

Google had a argumentation of having “history off” connected its chats by default, leaving it to labor to find erstwhile to move it connected for applicable conversations. DOJ’s Dintzer called nan alleged demolition of documents “unequivocal and honestly breathtaking.” He added that “there’s nary question” executives “intentionally had conversations pinch history off.”

“Google’s retention argumentation leaves a batch to beryllium desired,” said nan judge, adding disapprovingly that it was “surprising to maine that a institution would time off it to their labor to determine erstwhile to sphere documents.”

Soon after, Dintzer’s descent platform paused connected a descent that simply publication “This is Wrong,” arsenic nan DOJ lawyer pointed retired Google ne'er apologized for nan unretained documents nor promised not to do it again successful nan future. He said it’s imperative that nan tribunal enforce sanctions that show nan consequence of destroying documents is not worthwhile. The DOJ is asking Mehta to make an adverse conclusion astir Google for immoderate constituent of nan lawsuit wherever he doesn’t deliberation plaintiffs person capable evidence. That would mean nan judge would presume that immoderate deleted chats would person been bad for Google and showed their anticompetitive intent down their contracts pinch manufacturers and browsers. The DOJ besides wants Mehta to return nan destroyed chats arsenic a awesome of its anticompetitive intent.

Google lawyer Colette Connor said nan company’s lawyers had informed nan authorities of Texas (one of nan plaintiffs) early connected astir their retention policies. Dintzer said moreover that disclosure came months aft nan litigation clasp and that nan DOJ “clearly” would person acted had they known.

Mehta didn’t look to bargain Google’s defense. “It’s absorbing to maine that Google has been very deliberate — and possibly aft seeing what’s happened pinch Microsoft – very deliberate successful advising labor successful what not to say,” he said. In a training for employees, nan institution advised avoiding position for illustration “market share.” (Bloomberg Law has noted this is simply a communal practice successful ample companies.)

It’s now up to Mehta to determine really those absent chats should beryllium accounted for. He hasn’t provided a timeline for his decision, but successful nan meantime, Google and nan DOJ will beryllium preparing for their second antitrust face-off complete advertizing exertion successful nan fall.