Five Questions for the U.S. Department of Justice on Google
By Paul Steidler: Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to make his remedies ruling any day in the Google search case.
Whatever his ruling, two things are clear. First, the world of Internet search has changed dramatically since this case began in 2020, with Google itself making massive, transformative investments and the rise of AI leading to wholesale changes in how people search. Second, Google will be appealing the decision.
Recent developments call into question whether the rationale for filing the case still makes sense and whether it should be dropped entirely. Recently, President Trump has lauded Google numerous times and appeared at major announcements with the company.
In an August 19 interview with Steve Deace and a subsequent social media post, Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for Antitrust Gail Slater spoke of now being a “digital defrosting moment” for search, a peculiar claim. She also emphasized how her policies are bipartisan and in line with what the Biden Administration undertook, while failing to provide any examples of actual harm Google, whose search service is free, has done to consumers or anyone else.
Here are five questions, and potential follow-ups, that should be asked of AAG Slater and others at the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) in conjunction with the remedies’ announcement.
Does the DoJ agree or disagree with President Trump’s statement on July 23 that Google is comprised of “very good people” and that its AI investments are important for the United States to stay ahead of China?
What evidence, if any, is there that the Internet search market is static, that is, frozen, from where it was five years ago when this case began? And if that is a problem, why is no one speaking about it?
In what ways, if any, has AAG Slater’s approach to the Google search case differed from the Biden Administration’s approach?
Attorney General Pam Bondi recently fired Roger Alford, Ms. Slater’s top deputy, for reasons not related to Google. In a May 1 press release, though, the DoJ said of Alford that “since 2019, [he had been] consulting for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Texas v. Google.” Was this a concern to Ms. Slater? Why or why not?
What has been the cost to U.S. taxpayers for the DoJ’s work on this case? Why do you believe this is among the highest and best uses of taxpayer funds on antitrust matters?