In a recent development, the Justice Department has removed a collection of documents related to Google’s high-profile antitrust trial from public access. This action followed a complaint from Google to the court regarding the release of certain documents.
Throughout the trial’s first week, the DOJ’s antitrust team had been posting trial exhibits on a publicly accessible website. These exhibits included emails, charts, and other internal documents that were submitted as evidence. The dispute arose on Tuesday when Google raised concerns about a specific document included as a trial exhibit, reported Bloomberg.
This move to take down the documents has limited public visibility into what is being deemed as one of the most significant antitrust trials in over two decades. The trial has previously restricted public access when discussing confidential internal company information.
Related: DOJ Claims Google Monopoly Delayed Innovation: Bloomberg
One such instance involved the submission of notes authored by Google’s Vice President of Finance, Michael Roszak, during a July 2017 training session. In these notes, Roszak reportedly mentioned that the company could “ignore demand and focus on supply.” Google contested the publication of this document online, arguing its irrelevance to the proceedings.
Google’s attorney, John Schmidtlein, highlighted the importance of the documents’ public posting, saying, “Just so we understand what’s at stake here, every document they push into evidence they post on their website, and it gets picked up far and wide. This isn’t a business record, and it’s totally irrelevant to these proceedings.”
Judge Amit Mehta, who presides over the case, expressed surprise at the practice and stated, “That’s something I wish I’d been told. I think a judge is told before evidence in the record is actually put on a publicly available website.”
Source: Bloomberg
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand