US Court To Decide On Google Executives’ Written And Spoken Words

US Court To Decide On Google Executives’ Written And Spoken Words

In the antitrust trial, witnesses retreat their email content

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) is wrapping up its antitrust case against Google in the District Court – Eastern District of Virginia

The federal government and a coalition of states contended that Google built and maintained a monopoly on the technology used to buy and sell ads that consumers see when browsing the web.

However, Google countered that the government was improperly focused on a narrow slice of advertising, essentially the rectangular banner ads, that appear on the top and along the right of a publisher's web page. Within the broader online advertising market, the online search engine was beset by competition from social media companies and streaming TV services.

Meanwhile, the government's key witnesses, who have been Google managers and executives, often denied what they wrote in emails, chats and company presentations.

This came to the fore during the testimony of Jonathan Bellack, a product manager at Google, who wrote an email that government lawyers believe is particularly damning.

In 2016, Bellack wrote an email wondering, "Is there a deeper issue with us owning the platform, the exchange, and a huge network? The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).”

For the Justice Department, Bellack's description meant that Google's tech dominated the market that online publishers use to sell ad space on their web pages, and the technology used by huge networks of advertisers to buy ad space. The firm also dominated the ad exchanges serving as a middleman to match buyers and sellers.

Resultantly, Google's dominance has shut out competitors and charges exorbitant fees - 36 cents on the dollar for every ad impression that runs through its ad tech.

However, during the hearing, Bellack dismissed his email as "late-night, jet-lagged ramblings." He stated that Google's control of the buy-side, the sell-side and the middleman was not an issue. He speculated why certain customers were looking for workarounds to Google's technology.

Similarly, most current and former Google employees who testified as government witnesses rejected their own written words.

Recently, another Google executive, Nirmal Jayaram disavowed viewpoints expressed in his emails or articles and presentations co-authored by him.

The DoJ contended that what Google employees wrote in real-time was accurate. It stated there would be more damning documentary evidence if Google had not systematically deleted many of the internal chats that employees used to discuss business, even after the company was put on notice that it was under investigation.

The testimony proved that Google implemented a ‘Communicate with Care’ policy, instructing employees to add company lawyers to sensitive emails, which could be marked as ‘privileged’ and exempted from disclosure to government regulators.

District Judge Leonie Brinkema termed Google's policies on the retention of documents “absolutely inappropriate and improper", which she noticed during the trial, but no punishment was imposed.

The trial began early this month after a judge in the District Court of Columbia declared Google's core business, its ubiquitous search engine, an illegal monopoly. The trial to determine what remedies the judge can impose is ongoing.

The ad technology in the Virginia court trial does not generate the same kind of revenue for Google as its search engine but creates billions of dollars annually.

The trial has been moving more swiftly than the Washington, DC case.

The government has presented witnesses for nine days and the case in near completion. The judge advised Google to begin presenting its witnesses.

To decide whether Google holds a monopoly over technology that matches buyers and sellers of online advertising, the judge will have to choose whether to believe what Google executives wrote or what they said on the witness stand.