Google's Antitrust Case: Emails and Chats Under Scrutiny as Former Executives Testify
Google Employees’ Communication Practices Under Scrutiny in Antitrust Case
In a recent development in the ongoing antitrust case against Google, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought to light potentially concerning communication practices within the tech giant. Justice Department lawyers informed a Virginia court that Google employees have been labeling emails as “privileged and confidential” and conducting “off the record” conversations in chat messages.
These revelations came to light during courtroom proceedings where numerous documents labeled “privileged and confidential” were presented. Former Google ad executive Chris LaSala testified about the company’s chat message practices, revealing that chat history was set to off by default after a litigation hold was implemented.
LaSala admitted to using default chat settings to avoid email documentation and instructing employees to keep conversations off the record. He acknowledged occasional mistakes in following litigation hold terms but maintained general adherence to documenting work.
Other executives, including Brad Bender and Rahul Srinivasan, provided additional insights into Google’s communication culture. Bender described chat conversations as casual, while Srinivasan faced questioning about emails marked privileged and confidential.
The DOJ argues that Google employees were aware of the potential use of their written words against the company, citing Google’s “Communicate with Care” legal training. Examples of cautionary language in emails and instances of intentionally sparse documentation were presented to support this claim.
In response, Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels stated that the company has preserved and produced relevant documents, emphasizing Google’s history of responding to inquiries and litigation over the years.
This case follows a previous antitrust battle where a judge criticized Google for failing to preserve chat evidence, warning that the company may not avoid sanctions in future cases.
As the case unfolds, the court’s interpretation of these communication practices could have significant implications for Google, potentially leading to adverse inferences about missing documents if intentional destruction of evidence is determined.
