Background and Context
While the public has been captivated by the trial of accused cryptocurrency scam artist Sam Bankman-Fried, a massive antitrust trial against Google is unfolding in a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C. However, this trial has largely gone unnoticed due to its mind-numbing technical arguments and the fact that much of it has been conducted behind closed doors.
Secrecy at Google’s Behest
Judge Amit P. Mehta, largely at Google’s request, has allowed the trial to be conducted in secret. Hundreds of crucial documents and hours of testimony have been submitted and conducted behind closed doors. The judge has also refused to allow audio transmission of the proceedings, claiming it would be exploited for “clickbait.” Despite pleas from news organizations, the judge has limited access to the proceedings.
Google’s Victory in Secrecy
Google has already won a significant victory in this case by keeping crucial information about its business practices out of the public eye. This highlights a major failing of the American legal system, where wealthy litigants can exploit secrecy to their advantage. Google, worth $1.6 trillion, can defend its dominance while controlling the narrative and limiting public knowledge.
The Microsoft Precedent
Microsoft’s previous antitrust case in 2001 serves as an example of the benefits of secrecy for big tech companies. Microsoft’s reputation suffered from public scrutiny and allegations of falsified evidence. Consumer advocate Matt Stoller argues that Microsoft’s fear of future public exposure prevented it from using its control over the browser to eliminate competitors, particularly a young search company called Google.
A Trial in Secret
The dwindling cadre of reporters following the trial must attend in person and receive little advance notice of when they will be barred from the courtroom. Former Google executive John Giannandrea testified openly for only ten minutes before continuing his testimony in secret. The government has not protested Google’s demands to seal documents and testimony, and the judge has generally agreed to keep proceedings confidential.
The Case Against Google
The case alleges that Google has established itself as the default search engine on various devices and browsers, effectively closing off the search market to competitors. The plaintiffs argue that Google’s dominance is due to the power of defaults in guiding consumer behavior. Google denies any wrongdoing, claiming that users freely choose its search engine based on quality and price.
The Lack of Competition
Despite claims of user choice, changing the default search engine on Apple’s Safari browser is not an intuitive process. The plaintiffs argue that Google’s dominance and the difficulty of switching search engines indicate a lack of competition. Even if the trial rules against Google, the remedy process and the company’s sheer dominance make it unlikely that meaningful competition will emerge in the near future.
The Impact on Users
While Google’s apps are ubiquitous, they may not always be the best available. Chrome, for example, is slow, memory-intensive, and has raised privacy concerns. Google search results have also been influenced by deals with corporate partners. The lack of competition means that users have limited alternatives and must rely on Google’s services, raising questions about the company’s trustworthiness and its adherence to its original slogan, “Don’t be evil.”
Conclusion
The secrecy surrounding the Google antitrust trial raises concerns about transparency in the legal system. The ability of wealthy litigants to control access to information and proceedings undermines the principles of fairness and public accountability. As the trial progresses, the impact on users and the future of competition in the high-tech landscape remains uncertain.