Comment on this storyComment
The second day of a landmark antimonopoly trial against Google began Wednesday with an Apple lawyer protesting two figures the Justice Department mentioned in its opening statement the previous day.
It highlighted the strict confidentiality restrictions surrounding the trial, which transparency activists denounced as shrouding the dealings of one of the world’s most powerful companies.
At the end of the trial, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta will decide whether Google abused its monopoly power in its search and search advertising businesses and whether penalties are warranted. That decision is still months away.
In the meantime, many details of Google’s operations are likely to come to light under rules designed to protect the confidentiality of sensitive business information. On Wednesday morning, an Apple lawyer who is not involved in the antitrust case complained that government lawyers may have violated those rules regarding Apple. The Apple lawyer, whose name was not immediately available, said two numbers mentioned in passing in the Justice Department’s opening statement could potentially lead to a “misperception” that they came from Apple’s confidential information. “That would be a violation of the rules of engagement here,” he said.
Google attorney John Schmidtlein weighed in. “The comment that was made would give the impression to the public that this number was either theirs or ours.”
Justice Department lawyer Kenneth Dintzer told Mehta that the two numbers he quickly gave Tuesday were based on outside sources and not confidential information from Apple or Google. “This one slipped out,” he said. The Justice Department provided no further explanation.
Significant portions of the evidence in the trial have been sealed as trade secrets, even as activists push for more transparency in a trial that could impact how billions of people interact with the internet. The court set up a public telephone line for Tuesday’s opening arguments, but the rest of the months-long trial, including Wednesday’s session, will only be accessible in person.
Mehta acknowledged Apple’s protest but said he would let the matter rest for now.
“From where I was sitting, everyone was very hardworking,” Mehta said. “There’s a huge amount of material here.”
None of the lawyers said what the figures were on Wednesday. The complaint apparently referred to Dintzer saying Tuesday morning, “In 2020, Google paid $4 billion to $7 billion under the ISA,” a court filing said. Dintzer discussed with Apple the search giant’s Information Services Agreement (ISA), in which Google pays to have its search engine installed by default on iPhones and other Apple devices.
Dintzer also said in his opening statement that Google pays more than $10 billion a year to device and browser makers to achieve default status for its search engine. This broader statement did not raise objections from Google or Apple.
Ahead of the trial, activist groups had criticized the court’s decision to reject requests for a public phone line so people across the country could listen to the trial.
“The public has a very real interest in this case, and neither Google nor the court should have the ability to keep it secret,” Katherine Van Dyck, senior staff attorney at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement.
Some of the witness statements are expected to be closed to the public in the coming weeks amid fears they may be trade secrets. This is not uncommon in lawsuits over corporate business practices.
After Apple’s objection, the Justice Department resumed questioning witnesses. First on the stand Wednesday was Chris Barton, a former Google executive who negotiated standard search engine contracts with wireless carriers for the company. Prosecutors then recalled Google chief economist Hal Varian, who had testified on Tuesday.
The Justice Department has the next four weeks to present its case, interview witnesses and present evidence. The Attorney General’s Office then has two weeks to file a supplementary case. Google has three weeks from October 25 to present its defense.
A verdict in the case is not expected to come until next year.