Google Uses Cashier’s Check to Avoid Jury Trial

DOJ’s Antitrust Battle Against Google: A Complex Legal Saga

Introduction

An unexpected document surfaced last week in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) second antitrust lawsuit against Google. This document has added a new layer of complexity to an already intricate case.

DOJ’s Antitrust Case Against Google

The DOJ recently concluded its google-antitrust-trial/” title=”Apple's Multibillion-Dollar Deal: Key Focus in Google Antitrust Trial”>antitrust trial against Google in California. The outcome now rests with the judge, who will determine what Epic Games will receive. The DOJ has also requested a jury trial in its new case, influenced by state laws from some of the state attorneys general involved.

Technical Nature of the Case

Unlike other high-profile cases, such as Epic Games’ campaign or the Eras Tour debacle, the DOJ’s ad tech case against Google is less known and more technical. The intricacies of ad tech systems are at the heart of this case. Google even cited DOJ counsel from an earlier motion, where the DOJ described its own case as “highly technical, often abstract, and outside the everyday knowledge of most prospective jurors” while advocating for 15 trial days. The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This much is clear: it was an unusual strategy in an antitrust case for the government to add a claim for damages as a way to seek a jury trial.

— Gavil, antitrust and civil procedure professor

Google’s Response

Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels stated that the DOJ “manufactured a damages claim at the last minute in an attempt to secure a jury trial.” In its filing, Google argued that the DOJ’s damages claim was an afterthought, initiated late in the process. Despite the photocopied cashier’s check for damages on file, Google disputes any liability in the case.

Legal Perspectives

Gavil emphasized that the company’s check should not be seen as a payoff. The civil rules of procedure explicitly allow an “offer of judgment.”

So, the idea that a defendant might offer to satisfy a claim as a way to dismiss it is not at all unusual. Such offers are not viewed as ‘pay offs.’ They are a method for resolving disputes, just like a settlement in which the defendant does not agree to any liability but pays the plaintiff a sum in return for dismissal of a claim. No one would bat an eye at this if it were a settlement agreement.

— Gavil

Current Status

However, this is not a settlement agreement, and it has drawn significant attention. According to Gavil, Google’s check is not an offer of judgment because the government has not agreed or declined to drop the damages claim in return. Google is attempting to moot the damage claim, which is the sole basis for the DOJ’s request for a jury trial, by paying the maximum amount the DOJ could possibly recover on that claim. The theory is that if the claim has been fully satisfied, there is no claim.

Upcoming Trial

The ad tech trial is scheduled to begin on September 9th in the Eastern District Court of Virginia.

For more details, you can view the court document.