Google Faces Sanctions Over Missing Messages as Antitrust Trial Concludes

Google’s Search Business Fate Rests with Judge Amit Mehta as Landmark Trial Concludes

The future of Google’s search business now lies in the hands of Judge Amit Mehta, following the conclusion of closing arguments in the pivotal trial on Friday. The Department of Justice and plaintiff states presented their final arguments on Thursday, focusing on Google’s alleged anticompetitive practices related to its search engine marketing tool, SA360.

Accusations of Favoritism in SA360 Development

The plaintiff states argue that Google deliberately delayed the development of certain features for SA360 when it came to integrating with competing platforms like Microsoft’s Bing. Despite Google’s initial promise not to “play favorites,” the states claim that the company took nearly five years to deliver the requested feature for Bing ads, while it had already implemented the same functionality for Google search ads.

“The evidence here is a little bit tricky for Google,” Mehta said, noting the significance of Google having said rather publicly at the start that it was “not going to play favorites” when it came to SA360. While Google could have chosen to exclude Microsoft from the tool at the outset, “that’s not the choice they made,” Mehta said.

Concerns over Deleted Chats and Document Retention

A significant issue overshadowing the entire case is whether Google intentionally deleted or failed to retain documents that could have been used as evidence in the trial. Google’s policy of having “history off” on its chats by default, leaving it to employees to determine when to turn it on for relevant conversations, has come under scrutiny.

“Google’s retention policy leaves a lot to be desired,” said the judge, adding disapprovingly that it was “surprising to me that a company would leave it to their employees to decide when to preserve documents.”

The DOJ is requesting that the court impose sanctions to demonstrate that the risk of destroying documents is not worthwhile. They are asking Judge Mehta to make an adverse inference about Google for any element of the case where plaintiffs lack sufficient evidence, assuming that any deleted chats would have been detrimental to Google and indicative of their anticompetitive intent behind their contracts with manufacturers and browsers.

Google’s Defense and Judge Mehta’s Skepticism

Google attorney Colette Connor stated that the company’s lawyers had informed the state of Texas, one of the plaintiffs, about their retention policies early on. However, the DOJ argued that even this disclosure came months after the litigation hold and that they “clearly” would have acted had they known.

Judge Mehta appeared skeptical of Google’s defense, noting the company’s deliberate approach in advising employees on what not to say, such as avoiding terms like “market share” in employee training sessions.

As the landmark trial comes to a close, the fate of Google’s search business now rests in the hands of Judge Amit Mehta, who will carefully consider the evidence presented and the arguments made by both sides before reaching a decision that could have far-reaching implications for the tech giant and the industry as a whole.