A group of prominent lawyers claimed to be objective last month, as they urged a federal judge to take “precaution” when imposing antimonopoly remedies against the Google online search empire, but many of them have welcoming links with Big Tech, according to the publication.
The Judge of the North -American District, Amit Mehta, is expected to be dictated in August for the best way to restart Google’s illegal domain over online search after dictating last year that the company was “monopolist”. The Department of Justice, instead of simply punishing past offenses, wants Google and CEO Sundar Pichai to sell Chrome’s web browser, among other remedies.
On May 6, a group of old and federal commission of the Federal Commerce presented a brief brief of Amics to the Federal Judge against the aggressive remedies. Lawyers said that their brief was “in support of either party” and intended to guide Mehta on the “proper remedy standard”.
However, many of Brief co -authors have direct or indirect links to Google and other large technologies companies. Includes Joe Sims, who last year rejected criticism of the widespread destruction of Google tests as “silly” and Willard Tom, who defended Google in the large -profile antit -profile demand presented by the “Fortnite” manufacturer.
Their arguments closely coincide with those of the defense offered by Google, who claims that the DOJ proposals go far beyond the limits of the anti -timonopoly law and that the Risk Court of endangered the North -American direction of the AI and even national security.
Big Tech lawyers’ links raised alarms with Google critics, including Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Technological Supervisory Project, who told The Post “talking about volumes that the only people who rush to Google’s defense are people paid by Google to take care.”
“If Google breaks, it will be a victory for our digital economy that will lead to lower prices and more options for consumers,” added Haworth.
Apart from Chrome’s forced divestment, DOJ wants Google to share your search data with rivals. The agency has also called on Mehta to consider the potential impact of Google’s mass investments in search fueled by AI when any remedy is prepared.
Any other place, federals want Google to be banned from paying billions to companies like Apple to ensure that their search engine is set up as a default option on most smartphones. They also propose forced divestment of Google Android software if the initial remedies are ineffective.
“We have said that DOJ’s proposals are miles beyond the court’s decision,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. “We thank you for a wide range of experts, academics and companies.”
A brief friend, also known as the “court friend”, generally includes information that third parties interested in wanting to mark for the judge’s consideration before arriving at a verdict.
In a presentation, the co -authors of the Brief said that they did not pay any external party and that no external party had contributed to the writing.
The collaborators included Tad Lipsky, who runs the Competition Defense Program at the Global Antimonopoly Institute at the University of George Mason, which has received millions of funding from Google and other large technologies companies, often arguing a light touch on the anti -stimonopoly application.
Sims retired as a partner at the DiRam Jones Jones Day in 2016. In July 2024, Jones Day successfully assured the removal of a class demand demanding Google from antitrust violations related to his map service.
Last August, Sims raised his eyebrows when he argued that Mehta was “foolish” to criticize Google for removing employees’ chat records during the DOJ’s search trial, in violation of court orders to preserve evidence.
“No company has an obligation to create a trace of paper for people or entities that want to attack -” Sims wrote to X. “If there is something, it has the trustee of doing the opposite.”
Tom is a former member of Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, who represented Google against the antitrust demand of the “Fortnite” manufacturer until his retirement in July 2022. Google finally lost demand in a bombs ruling that has significant implications for his “Google Play” app store.
Richard Parker previously represented Apple in the case of electronic books he bought the DOJ and is currently working at Milbank Tweed, a company he advised on Google at the search trial and helped to argue his continuous attractiveness of Epic game verdict.
The brief notes that Parker contributed to “his personal capacity” and that “had not worked for Google on this subject or any other matter.”
Terry Calvani worked on the law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus deringer from 2005 to 2019, a period of time when the firm served as an external lawyer of Google in various demands. From 2020 to 2025, Calvini was the main advisor to the Brunswick Group strategic communications signature, which has Google as a client.
Several applicators who supported the brief friend, including Sims and Lipsky, are authors for the truth in the market: a blog focused on the law with close links with the large international center of law and economics funded by technology.
Jon Neuchaterlein is a non -resident lead member of the Institute for Technology Policy, who recognizes on his website he has received donations such as Google, Amazon and Apple, among other technology companies.
From 2015 to 2024, Neuchaterlein was a member of the Sidley Austin law firm. During his term, the firm featured Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Intel among its customers.
In his brief, anti -tuning lawyers urged Mehta to take “precaution” when two elements of DOJ’s proposal (forced chromium divestment and search data sharing requirement) are proposed to avoid exceeding the limits of the anti -timonopoly law.
“The antimonopoly remedies in a monopoly maintenance case are intended to finish their illegal conduct and prevent their recurrence and solve the damage shown to the competition caused by illegal conduct,” said the brief.
Lawyers added that remedies that “beyond or are not designed closely to achieve these goals, can undermine the purpose of antitrust laws inhibiting the very robust competition that these laws are intended to promote.”
#Exclusive #Lawyers #precaution #antimonopoly #remedies #Google #search #process #welcoming #bonds #Big #Tech
Image Source : nypost.com