The largest antitrust trial of the modern Internet era, which wrapped up last month, pitted the world’s most popular search engine, Google, against the US Department of Justice. The case hearkened back to the department’s landmark lawsuit against Microsoft in the 1990s, but with a critical difference: Most of it was held behind closed doors.
This unprecedented secrecy meant that only journalists and observers who were physically in the courtroom had access — albeit limited — to the proceedings.
Google’s stated mission is to make the world’s information universally accessible, but its actions during the trial, in which it was accused of illegally maintaining a search and advertising monopoly, stand in sharp contrast to that credo.
Illustration: Yusha
The case also set a dangerous precedent: to protect its core business and reputation, a private company persuaded a court to limit transparency and public access to information, eroding press freedom and constraining news coverage of the trial in the US and abroad.
From the start, Google went to great lengths to keep as much information as possible away from the public.
The company successfully objected to the court providing a live audio feed of the proceedings and managed to convince the judge to sequester key witnesses’ testimony, saying that trade secrets could be revealed in open court.
As the trial wound down, Google also challenged the justice department’s posting of evidence on its Web site, which led to the material’s removal for a full week.
The New York Times, with the support of other publications, filed a motion demanding that the court give reporters access to admitted trial exhibits.
As media observers said, trade publications struggled to report on the trial, presumably because of the costs associated with attending in person.
As a senior writer at MediaPost, an online resource for advertising professionals, said: “If this trial was streamed — something Google opposed — I think we’d all be listening in.”
Moreover, the few journalists who were in the courtroom were under immense time pressure to report, fact-check and link public records to articles.
With trust in traditional media at an all-time low, showing news events, not just reporting them, has become even more crucial.
Foreign media coverage also suffered as a result. With only a handful of deep-pocketed US publications able to afford to report on the trial, most foreign outlets, especially in developing countries, had no choice but to source from them.
A basic Internet search for news about the Google trial in languages other than English showed a heavy reliance on Bloomberg, Reuters and The Associated Press. This dilutes the power of a free press, which depends on multiple media outlets independently reporting on events in ways that meet their audiences where they are.
The ramifications of this antitrust trial, like Microsoft’s before it, are obviously not limited to the US. Given that Google handles more than 90 percent of Internet searches worldwide, the company is an immensely important information gatekeeper.
The lucrative business deals that Google makes with Apple and other tech companies to secure its position as the default search engine on their devices affect Brazil and South Africa as much as the US. Android’s market share is actually far higher in developing countries.
In terms of advertising revenue generated from search results, the same tools — and possibly the same strategies to control prices — are used in the US and abroad.
Thus, a livestream of the trial and timely access to evidence would have made a great difference for press freedom worldwide. For example, with an audio feed, publications could have translated testimony and developed multimedia stories that were relevant to local audiences. This, in turn, could have created strong incentives for other market players — competitors and clients of Google — to speak up about their own relationships with the company.
Greater transparency might have sparked even more scrutiny of Google’s behavior — precisely what makes a free press so important.
The information that was made public during the trial underscores that it was a missed opportunity to reveal Big Tech’s power to a global audience.
That Google paid US$26 billion in 2021 to be the default search engine on several browsers and devices, such as the iPhone, was divulged during cross-examination of one of the company’s witnesses.
Another of Google’s witnesses inadvertently said that the company pays Apple 36 percent of its search advertising revenue made through the Safari browser.
It also became clear that Google faces remarkably little pushback when raising prices for search advertisements.
A verdict in the Google case is expected next year, but many believe it will not be the last time a Big Tech company is put on trial in the US.
The justice department has filed a second suit against Google, targeting its advertising business, which connects news publishers with advertisers, while the US Federal Trade Commission recently sued Amazon for its capture of online retail.
It is not too late for the courts and the justice department to correct the dangerous precedent of Google’s secret trial. Defending a free and diverse press — a bedrock principle of democracy — should never come second to powerful corporate interests.
Karina Montoya is a senior reporter and policy analyst at the Center for Journalism & Liberty, a program of the Open Markets Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS