Google and Alphabet Inc. CEO Sundar Pichai arrives on the federal courthouse in Washington, Monday, Oct. 30, 2023.
Jose Luis Magana | AP
Google on Monday referred to as its star witness to testify in its protection in opposition to the U.S. authorities’s antitrust problem of its search business: CEO Sundar Pichai.
The testimony was the primary alternative for presidency attorneys to press Alphabet’s prime govt in open courtroom on the corporate’s actions to safe its dominant place in on-line search. The Department of Justice and a coalition of state attorneys basic are seeking to prove that Google has sought to lock out rivals from key distribution channels for search by way of unique offers with cellphone producers and internet browser-makers.
For the final month and a half of the trial, the federal government has been working to make its case that Google’s actions violate antitrust legislation by way of unlawful monopoly upkeep. The lack of competitors in basic search instruments, the federal government argues, deprives shoppers of improved high quality and selection.
The authorities’s cross-examination of Pichai on Monday highlighted how Google has contended with the potential of dropping out on key distribution channels when it was a a lot smaller firm in 2005.
Department of Justice legal professional Meagan Bellshaw pressed Pichai on how Google values the default placement of its search engine on phones and internet browsers. Bellshaw introduced up paperwork from almost twenty years in the past that demonstrated how Google thought-about the business significance of being the default search engine on browsers.
Bellshaw pointed to a 2005 letter from Google’s then-Chief Legal Officer David Drummond to Microsoft’s then-General Counsel Brad Smith relating to Microsoft’s latest model of its Internet Explorer browser. In that model, IE7, Microsoft deliberate to construct search into its toolbar, so customers didn’t want to obtain separate extensions to search from the toolbar. The search engine for that module can be decided by no matter customers picked in the earlier model of IE.
Google expressed concern on the time that the setting to change the search engine on IE was hidden. Pichai testified that to his data, “not a single consumer” used the IE setting in the sooner model of the browser to change the search engine from Microsoft’s.
In the e-mail to Smith in 2005, Drummond stated that “Microsoft’s strategy places its personal pursuits above these of finish customers.”
Drummond added, “As , most finish customers don’t change defaults.”
That line hits at a key factor of the federal government’s argument: that whereas it could be attainable for customers to swap their search engine on the Safari browser on the iPhone, for instance, few really do. Pichai stated Drummond’s assertion was particular to the best way Microsoft was implementing defaults on its browser.
“By pushing out an replace of IE with a brand new search field that may default to Microsoft’s personal search product in the overwhelming majority of circumstances, Microsoft would acquire a lot of search customers for causes having nothing to do with the deserves of Microsoft’s search providing,” Drummond wrote on the time.
Google had “proposed as a substitute that customers be prompted to choose the default search supplier the primary time they use the inline search function,” Drummond wrote in the 2005 letter.
Pichai stated the request mirrored what Google noticed as “a novel egregious case of how they weren’t honoring consumer desire in any respect,” as a result of it did not mirror how customers really engaged with search engines.
Bellshaw contrasted the request with Google’s strategy to alternative screens below its personal revenue-sharing contracts with cellphone producers.
Pichai testified that Google doesn’t prohibit alternative screens, however conceded that for cellphone producers who agree to the income sharing settlement (RSA), offering a alternative display for the search engine wouldn’t be according to the settlement. He stated that when doing a industrial deal just like the RSA, “we’re paying for enhanced promotion.” He added that cellphone producers “have the choice not to take the RSA.”
Later, Bellshaw confirmed a 2007 presentation from a Google worker who helped negotiate revenue-sharing offers. One slide stated that “What Apple needs” is for Google to be one in all two search supplier choices. Pichai stated this was particularly for a model of Safari on PCs.
Notes from a 2007 assembly confirmed that Google was conscious of the ability of defaults. According to these notes, somebody requested how a lot of a distinction default standing makes. The reply: “Typically 75% take price. Defaults have robust impression.”
Relationship between Google and Apple
Pichai nervous about dropping workers to rivals, together with Apple, the DOJ argued.
Bellshaw introduced a 2019 e-mail from Pichai, which the CEO stated summarized one other govt’s considerations with current turnover. Pichai requested for “month-to-month reviews of all losses to key rivals on an ongoing foundation.” But if anybody from the search group went to Apple, he requested to be notified for every case.
Pichai stated he wasn’t positive if he’d really obtained these reviews.
Bellshaw additionally tried to press Pichai on Google’s shut relationship with Apple when it got here to their search deal, whereas they competed in different realms just like the smartphone market.
In notes from a 2018 assembly that included Pichai and Apple CEO Tim Cook, a Google govt recounted that Google expressed, “Our imaginative and prescient is that we work as if we’re one firm.” Pichai testified that he didn’t recall saying that line. He added that popping out of that assembly, throughout which Apple needed to focus on considerations about income progress deceleration on Safari below their present deal, “there was some what I might name irrational exuberance.”
In 2021, Pichai authorized an extension of the 2016 cope with Apple.
On Friday, the courtroom discovered that Google paid $26.3 billion in 2021 to be the default search engine on cellphones and internet browsers. That quantity contains how a lot it pays to Apple, in addition to different corporations.
Deleted chats
The DOJ additionally addressed Google’s coverage of not mechanically retaining inside chat messages, regardless of being topic to a litigation maintain. In February, the DOJ alleged that Google “systematically destroyed” on the spot message chats by way of its history-off choice that allowed them to be deleted each 24 hours until a consumer manually modified the setting.
Pichai acknowledged he was conscious of the history-off default for chat that persevered till February and that he had taken motion to change that.
Bellshaw pointed to a message change the place Pichai requested for historical past to be turned off in a gaggle chat in 2021. Pichai testified that he did so to focus on a personnel matter, alongside the traces of who can be a great speaker at an occasion. It was not one thing even “remotely” shut to one thing coated by the litigation maintain, he stated.
“I take nice care to adjust to all litigation holds,” Pichai testified.
Bellshaw additionally requested if Pichai would mark paperwork or messages as attorney-client privileged and replica Google’s Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker, even when he wasn’t explicitly in search of authorized recommendation. Pichai stated no.
Bellshaw pointed to Pichai’s 2022 deposition, the place he conceded it was attainable that from time to time he by accident included Walker and requested for recommendation, when he was actually in search of to mark one thing as confidential.
Bellshaw additionally returned to the sooner letter Drummond despatched to Smith in 2005 about IE7. In the letter, Drummond stated authorized motion was a “foreseeable chance” and requested Microsoft to “take care to retain all previous and future data relating to any plans to tie search to any Microsoft product or in any other case deprive shoppers of aggressive alternative and search.”
WATCH: DOJ takes on Google in historic antitrust lawsuit over search dominance