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
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China. The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying. The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently sat down for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in which he openly acknowledged that ChatGPT’s model behavior is indeed influencing the entire world, and that he himself is responsible for the decisions related to the bot’s moral framework. He said that he has not had a good night of sleep since its launch, as the technology could bring about unpredictable consequences. Although the discussion took place in the US, it is closely related to Taiwan. While Altman worries about the concentration of power, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already weaponized artificial
RSS